Modern times: global anarchy
12
Good for you, David. I'm a Jew, but this column gives word to the pain that contemporary life and social values have engendered in me,too. It's one of your best columns ever. How sad that in the New York Times it will largely fall on deaf ears.
24
Brooks has again painted non-believers with a very broad brush and has not given us credit for our spirituality and our acceptance of those not like us. There is no darkness in my community of liberals. Just when you think he may have had an epiphany, he write this.
198
So you are asking conservatives to embrace liberal principles?
53
Right-wing values are not "Christian," Mr. Brooks!
79
David Brooks should read his Bible before presuming to lecture Christians.
Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
25
Why do you have to describe the act of "doing kind things for your neighbors and community" that so many secular people are doing already as "the next culture war" for Christians to get into? The level of your idiocy knows no bounds and hole that your relevancy has fallen into has no bottom....
69
Can someone please shout "AMEN!" Mr. Brooks' words are like a long-needed breath of fresh air in an all too musty room.
19
HaHa. Good one, Mr. Brooks. Your plea only drives home how intellectually impoverished the religious right has become in the modern world.
64
"American culture is shifting away from orthodox Christian positions on ... divorce."
I didn't know there was an orthodox Christian position on divorce. But in any case, divorce is on a downswing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-t...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/upshot/how-we-know-the-divorce-rate-is...
I didn't know there was an orthodox Christian position on divorce. But in any case, divorce is on a downswing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-t...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/upshot/how-we-know-the-divorce-rate-is...
16
As long as "Christian" social conservatives align themselves with hyper-individualistic Libertarian Social Darwinists, they are in the flock who worship the Mammon of Wall Street -- that big brass bull that the superstitious stroke daily for "luck" and prosperity as they pass by.
Libertarians are what traditional Judeo-Christian theologians would call idol worshipers. Libertarians like Paul Ryan offer us an "opportunity society" -- a competitive, dog-eat-dog struggle for a place on the ladder of prosperity. If you lose your footing and fall off that ladder, Republicans feel justified in leaving you to die where you land -- as we heard in the GOP primary debates of the last presidential cycle.
Jesus never said, "the 47% ye have always with you -- forget those moochers and losers (you can't save them and they don't deserve saving) and follow me to financial prosperity." Conservative Christians have sold their baptismal birthright for a mess of economic jiggery-pokery. Intellectually, it's pure applesauce, but it smells like death. These whited sepulchers will NOT lead us to a kinder, gentler society, nor do they wish to.
Libertarians are what traditional Judeo-Christian theologians would call idol worshipers. Libertarians like Paul Ryan offer us an "opportunity society" -- a competitive, dog-eat-dog struggle for a place on the ladder of prosperity. If you lose your footing and fall off that ladder, Republicans feel justified in leaving you to die where you land -- as we heard in the GOP primary debates of the last presidential cycle.
Jesus never said, "the 47% ye have always with you -- forget those moochers and losers (you can't save them and they don't deserve saving) and follow me to financial prosperity." Conservative Christians have sold their baptismal birthright for a mess of economic jiggery-pokery. Intellectually, it's pure applesauce, but it smells like death. These whited sepulchers will NOT lead us to a kinder, gentler society, nor do they wish to.
90
"Can't we all just get along?" -- Rodney King, 2012
Well, no, we can't, because salvation is at stake. The long and short of it, professor: "God is not mocked." Not a few well-read people think the Mideast conflagration will culminate in Armageddon. Not to mention a newly belligerent China, and our eternal nemesis, Russia, at the margins. Ask yourself, isn't it high time our sorry state of Civilization came to its dramatic denouement? It's only gonna get worse, esp. when Son of 9/11 happens, which could be this coming weekend, according to 18,000 easily-alarmed "law enforcement agencies," the anchor news fella said.
It puts me in mind of Kit Marvell: "But always at my back I hear Time's winged chariot hurrying near, / And yonder all before us lie deserts of vast eternity." Eyeless in Gaza, we wonder in the trackless desert of moral relativism, uncovering "new human rights" as we go.
Well, no, we can't, because salvation is at stake. The long and short of it, professor: "God is not mocked." Not a few well-read people think the Mideast conflagration will culminate in Armageddon. Not to mention a newly belligerent China, and our eternal nemesis, Russia, at the margins. Ask yourself, isn't it high time our sorry state of Civilization came to its dramatic denouement? It's only gonna get worse, esp. when Son of 9/11 happens, which could be this coming weekend, according to 18,000 easily-alarmed "law enforcement agencies," the anchor news fella said.
It puts me in mind of Kit Marvell: "But always at my back I hear Time's winged chariot hurrying near, / And yonder all before us lie deserts of vast eternity." Eyeless in Gaza, we wonder in the trackless desert of moral relativism, uncovering "new human rights" as we go.
8
Mr Brooks writes notes that Christianity is in decline in the US because "American culture is shifting away from orthodox Christian positions on homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce and a range of other social issues."
And yet, Christ did not concern himself with any of these things. Perhaps Christianity is in decline because it has been hijacked to be a social cudgel, and no longer focuses on love.
And yet, Christ did not concern himself with any of these things. Perhaps Christianity is in decline because it has been hijacked to be a social cudgel, and no longer focuses on love.
108
Mr. Brooks,
Social/religious conservatives will do none of that.
Social/religious conservatives will do none of that.
29
Christians is this country set up their own fall when they attached themselves to politicians. Ignoring the Constitutional divide between state and religion brought out the worst in Christian hypocrisy.
70
I don't know where you get the idea that Christianity today is defined by "a public obsession with sex." Who thinks that? Who brought up the subject of fundamentally redefining a cherished religious institution which has served as the basis for our traditional concept of family. Christians? But even if your counsel represents smart public relations strategy in this new age, faith is not necessarily compatible with strategy. You follow your heart. Christian beliefs regarding marriage are not unreasonable, not arbitrary, not trivial, and they are under attack. Never mind, you say, feed the poor. Yes, do that too, but it's not just as simple as Whatever Justice Kennedy Says, Goes. I expect Christians to speak their mind on the subject, however impolitic that may seem to you, David. Think what you will, I call that refreshing.
11
The whole issue with Social conservatives is that they are always worried about the other person. Quit worrying about somebody else and just do the things that you believe in and others might consider learning from your actions and not your constant preaching that somebody else is not like you and is living the wrong & sinful way. People like Falwell & Graham may have good ideas; but they are just nauseating in the way that they preach to others while being hypocritical themselves. That is the major turnoff to the religious right, conservative, GOP movement. Good ideas, but very bad implementation,
31
As usual, Brooks uses "Christian" to mean white Biblical literalist, as opposed to people who may revere Jesus but did not take Roe v. Wade as license to join the segregationists. It's a way to conflate Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants politically, who have very little in common, doctrinally, and to turn the religion of FDR Catholics, on abortion, more broadly against civil rights.
Robbie George now leads that pack, with his "Natural Law" garbage against gays. What are "orthodox Christian" positions on sexual issues, anyway? Warmed-over Old Testament strictures, adopted, relatively recently, by certain Jesus sects and not by others. I'm nominally a non-schismatic Episcopalian. That make me a Christian? Apparently not, in the eyes of those David would like to impress.
Jesus exhorted his followers to cast off all worldly ties, for His Second Coming was near--he expected to return from the dead within their lifetime, the sword-wielding Messiah of the Jews, a wrathful scourge, divine retribution against those who had treated powerless people badly, not as the sex police.
To a degree, it turned out that way. Christianity has uplifted myriads the Ancients confined to slavery, including all women and most men. No thanks to people of the modern "Christian" type, however. We are NOT a post-Christian nation. Hopefully, maybe, we are becoming a post-"Christian" nation.
Robbie George now leads that pack, with his "Natural Law" garbage against gays. What are "orthodox Christian" positions on sexual issues, anyway? Warmed-over Old Testament strictures, adopted, relatively recently, by certain Jesus sects and not by others. I'm nominally a non-schismatic Episcopalian. That make me a Christian? Apparently not, in the eyes of those David would like to impress.
Jesus exhorted his followers to cast off all worldly ties, for His Second Coming was near--he expected to return from the dead within their lifetime, the sword-wielding Messiah of the Jews, a wrathful scourge, divine retribution against those who had treated powerless people badly, not as the sex police.
To a degree, it turned out that way. Christianity has uplifted myriads the Ancients confined to slavery, including all women and most men. No thanks to people of the modern "Christian" type, however. We are NOT a post-Christian nation. Hopefully, maybe, we are becoming a post-"Christian" nation.
30
I for one would like to see Mr. Brooks compare our country in this regard to Germany, England, France, etc. The column sounded, to me at least, as if there are no other choices. Do some European countries, for example, have common norms that young people there follow, even though they are not particularly religious?
And, by the way, thanks for all of your fine columns, Mr. Brooks. They alone are worth my subscription price.
And, by the way, thanks for all of your fine columns, Mr. Brooks. They alone are worth my subscription price.
4
I'm disheartened to see that most comments don't respond in kind to the hopeful, generous spirit of the column. There's mostly spite, anger and self-righteousness. I for one don't despair of seeing conservative evangelicals getting in touch with their inner Dorothy Day.
18
Dear David, Your entire argument seems to be based on the assumption that American Christians are an Evangelical conservative monolith. Plenty of us Christians celebrate as victories the events you cite as Christian losses. And for God's sake lose the "sexual revolution" meme. What that means, it's so over.
30
Please understand that Right Wing Conservative Christians are only ONE part of Christianity. There are Christians who are open-minded, inclusive, questioning people not married to dogma or literal interpretation of scripture but more focused on service and social justice! We are Christians too, unfortunately, who are too often drowned out by the noise of the right.
35
I think Brooks' analysis is a little off.
At least here in San Francisco, Christianity is less about a heavy ethical system (with a lot of do's and don'ts, particularly concerning sex), and more about food banks, non-profits offering palliative care to the terminally ill, and things like that.
Increasingly, I think, Christianity in America is moving in the direction of acceptance and even forgiveness, as exhibited by many in Charleston, SC after those nine murders there.
This is very much at odds with the judgmentalism of the Christian right, but it's not un-Christian. Arguably, it's more Christian than the Christian right.
Christianity is
At least here in San Francisco, Christianity is less about a heavy ethical system (with a lot of do's and don'ts, particularly concerning sex), and more about food banks, non-profits offering palliative care to the terminally ill, and things like that.
Increasingly, I think, Christianity in America is moving in the direction of acceptance and even forgiveness, as exhibited by many in Charleston, SC after those nine murders there.
This is very much at odds with the judgmentalism of the Christian right, but it's not un-Christian. Arguably, it's more Christian than the Christian right.
Christianity is
40
You have to search the bible long and hard to find out what it has to say on "... on homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce... " However, open it at random and you are likely to be instructed on the necessity to take care of the poor and less fortunate. Social conservatives who consistently act to make rich people richer and poor people poorer, have little right to call themselves Christians and no standing to lead "The Next Culture War" based on selfless assistance to communities in poverty.
David, your dreaming.
David, your dreaming.
44
Who or what is the cause of the "fraying of social structure" or "economic joblessness"? Why not address this issue if this is so important?
Do we need religion to solve this?
Is this country in need of "spiritual vocabulary" or rather in need of jobs with living wages and welfare for those who cannot help themselves? And who is opposed to this?
If most religious folks are also social conservatives then one should not be surprised that more and more people question what's in it for them.
I'm surprised it has taken this long...
Do we need religion to solve this?
Is this country in need of "spiritual vocabulary" or rather in need of jobs with living wages and welfare for those who cannot help themselves? And who is opposed to this?
If most religious folks are also social conservatives then one should not be surprised that more and more people question what's in it for them.
I'm surprised it has taken this long...
15
Yes, the social fabric is indeed very frayed. So why don't you encourage social conservatives to stop voting for Republicans who as a matter of policy are doing everything they can - e.g. refusing to raise the minimum wage, or trying to destroy the ACA - so as to make life even more difficult for the poor and middle class?
And Earth to David: you don't need to be a social conservative to serve as "a messenger of love, dignity, communion and grace." All you need to be is a decent human being alert to our common humanity.
And Earth to David: you don't need to be a social conservative to serve as "a messenger of love, dignity, communion and grace." All you need to be is a decent human being alert to our common humanity.
33
Mainstream Christians have always considered the greatest values to be loving God and loving their neighbors. Flag waving is not on the list. Things have gone a bit askew in America with the combination of Republican politics and Fundamentalism in order to win votes. The wrong path was taken some years ago. Chaffee, from a great Republican family, even said that the Republican Party left him.
14
First, these Christians used their religion to justify slavery. Later, to justify a ban against interracial marriage. Now, to justify a ban against same sex marriage. Pious people have been using religion to persecute others for thousands of years. And so yes, there is a ongoing "culture war" against those forces of oppression and persecution.
22
I'm a Christian, but not a "Social Conservative". I'm not sure that Jesus would have approved of the Bible as it is taught in Evangelical churches, or of the rush to judgement made, apparently by many evangelicals. After all, he is reputed to have said that only the sinless can "cast the first stone."
So, David, I think it's nice to encourage the Christian community to dedicate themselves to serving the less fortunate, but don't you think they should do it without judgement?
So, David, I think it's nice to encourage the Christian community to dedicate themselves to serving the less fortunate, but don't you think they should do it without judgement?
21
Promote honesty and integrity.
Please sever the institutional relationship with the GOP. There are major stories just in today's Ohio papers and The Times over its promotion of smoking and water pollution.
Please sever the institutional relationship with the GOP. There are major stories just in today's Ohio papers and The Times over its promotion of smoking and water pollution.
13
Christians have used their indoctrination to force their twisted morality on the nation since the first white people showed up to escape religious persecution. They deserve a guilty conscience. I will throw in with them when the liberals try to enact legislation forcing me to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender. Until then their war on Christian bile is a shameful scream for attention. Demagoguery this transparent is as Republican as abortion and social safety nets wailings.
Conservative should be delighted with the latest judicial fiat served up by the Supremes. Now they have a sexual deviants getting married wing to add to the GOP Big Tent of Dissatisfaction and Dissent. When they add the Confederate Battle Flag wing it will become clear conservative culture warriors have jumped the shark.
What is so difficult about Christians following the teachings of Christ? It seems the lessons taught in the homes and churches of the faithful serve more to enrage their sensibilities than to keep faith. If more Christians behaved as Emmanuel AME members do there would be fewer people demanding their confederate battle flag be recognized as source of pride and heritage. Onward Christian soldier, indeed.
Conservative should be delighted with the latest judicial fiat served up by the Supremes. Now they have a sexual deviants getting married wing to add to the GOP Big Tent of Dissatisfaction and Dissent. When they add the Confederate Battle Flag wing it will become clear conservative culture warriors have jumped the shark.
What is so difficult about Christians following the teachings of Christ? It seems the lessons taught in the homes and churches of the faithful serve more to enrage their sensibilities than to keep faith. If more Christians behaved as Emmanuel AME members do there would be fewer people demanding their confederate battle flag be recognized as source of pride and heritage. Onward Christian soldier, indeed.
11
With this column, I realize that I am in a segment of the political spectrum that is nearly the opposite of Mr. Brooks. That is, to his right on social issues and more progressive on economic issues. I often read his supply-side economic views with ruffled feathers. Whether his advice to those like Robert P. George should be heeded, I don't know. But I do know that his concluding prescriptions of working to heal the wounds of a "strained and frayed" society is a culture war that Christians should always be fighting.
1
A distinction needs to be made between being a Christian vs. being a member of a particular religious order. A Christian is a follower or disciple of Jesus; someone who believes Jesus is the Christ or Messiah. The New Testament mentions that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians within a few years after his death. That said, I am a Catholic, but not a very good, practicing Catholic. Actually, I'm a terrible Catholic, but I think I am a very good Christian. There are a lot of differing faiths out there which tend to either be on the extreme side (bible thumpers as someone once called them) and then those in between.
Being a Christian for me is all about developing kindness and compassion, accepting and respecting other value systems and beliefs, not to be judgmental nor hateful. These are traits of Jesus. Trying to be a better person every day is also on that list. Being a Christian shouldn't be complicated.
Now if only those religious institutions could pay their share of taxes. . .
Being a Christian for me is all about developing kindness and compassion, accepting and respecting other value systems and beliefs, not to be judgmental nor hateful. These are traits of Jesus. Trying to be a better person every day is also on that list. Being a Christian shouldn't be complicated.
Now if only those religious institutions could pay their share of taxes. . .
13
Mr. Brooks: As always, I find your columns very interesting, thought-provoking, and yes, inspiring. I too have watched with great concern at recent events that indicate a moral shift in our society. Whether or not this indicates the decline of Christianity, I can't say for certain. But there is definitely something wrong when Christians are attacked in their own churches as we most recently witnessed in Charleston, South Carolina.
In my opinion, this was as much an attack on race, as it was on Christianity, and a sad harbinger for the future.
In my opinion, this was as much an attack on race, as it was on Christianity, and a sad harbinger for the future.
4
I think what Brooks is trying to tell his colleagues is : turn your religion from one based on Hate to what it ostensibly purports to be, a movement geared to helping those in need.
Perhaps American christianity lost its way with the likes of Falwell, Graham and a host of others like them, but as they say, you can't fool All the people All the time. People are indeed beginning to "see the light", through the fraudulent religious leaders who have professed a religion of hate only to divide rather than unite the country.
" If Jesus saves, then he better save himself, from the gory, glory seekers, who use his name in death."
With little or no help from any "christian" institutions in this country, the people have begun to find their own way. One which is focused on acceptance rather than hatred. Social conservative christians have played their hate card to the max and will continue do so, but with the help of the next generation, their impact will, hopefully, continue to be diminished.
Perhaps American christianity lost its way with the likes of Falwell, Graham and a host of others like them, but as they say, you can't fool All the people All the time. People are indeed beginning to "see the light", through the fraudulent religious leaders who have professed a religion of hate only to divide rather than unite the country.
" If Jesus saves, then he better save himself, from the gory, glory seekers, who use his name in death."
With little or no help from any "christian" institutions in this country, the people have begun to find their own way. One which is focused on acceptance rather than hatred. Social conservative christians have played their hate card to the max and will continue do so, but with the help of the next generation, their impact will, hopefully, continue to be diminished.
11
"Social conservatives are well equipped to repair this fabric, and to serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace." So why are they all so mean?
25
"How economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other"- what does this mean? The sentence construction seems to say that each one reinforces the other. Spiritual poverty reinforces economic joblessness? Granted that I have no idea what spiritual poverty would be, I still think it is not a factor in economic joblessness. Why do I read David Brooks? Oh , yes, it is for the comments. I hope I am not encouraging his employment by adding my own comment.
12
This is a nice article. Here is why I think it won't happen. They cannot implement Mr. Brooks vision because conservative Christian leaders have wedded themselves not to the Gospel of Christ but to the philosophy of Ayn Rand who despise the poor, view the needy as weak and parasitic. They have adopted the ideology of the 1%, not the service mentality needed to advance spiritual practice.
19
Many of these comments are declarations of hate directed at the Christan commumunty, Brooks's idea that the faith based community retreat to their own communities where the light of God can be preserved until Western civilization comes to its senses is the most logical path. There is a pathway to Heaven and a highway to Hell in anticipation of the traffic.
4
As is well known, David himself has struggled to conform with the older social norms he describes. So too Bristol Palin, Newt Gingrich, and many other conservatives. Liberals are neither better, nor worse at upholding values of love, honor, and commitment, but liberals are not part of a socio-political movement actively seeking to return our society to the earlier era so many conservatives idealize. That is the paradox conservatives face, a paradox their movement has not resolved.
6
If there is a "cultural war" as outlined by Mr. Brooks, one that is upsetting to some (but not all) Christians, its basis does not rest on some perceived assault on Christian values or a general demise or morality. Rather, it is centered on the fact that (some) Christians can less easily impose their values (e.g. blue laws, contraception, marriage) on the rest of a society that they deemed less "pure" or "lost". This change in influence appears bothersome.
The solution is to tend to one's own flock while, at the same time, learning to live comfortably with others of differing worldview.
The solution is to tend to one's own flock while, at the same time, learning to live comfortably with others of differing worldview.
5
Just what are the "orthodox Christian positions on homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce and a range of other social issues" that Mr. Brooks is talking about here? Are they the values, beliefs, concerns that Jesus, as reported to us in the New Testament, spoke about? He seems to have spoken far more about the evils of wealth, of being judgmental, of intolerance, and of hatred toward others.
Although Mr. Brooks makes some excellent suggestions for how the teachings of Jesus could be put into practice, there are a few things that bother me about his column. The first is that there is an implicit assumption that those dang liberals are NOT doing those things and that it is up to the social conservatives to show them the way, but in essence to shoe them up. It isn't to do these things out of the non-judgmental love of one's neighbor that Christ taught as the Second Great Commandment, but because presumably that will stop the decline of church membership and will return the country to some mythical Christian identity. As someone else said, where is the humility? Where is the recognition that all are sinners, no matter what path they follow in life? His prescription seems to stem more from a belief that he and other "social conservatives" are morally superior to the socially liberal, they just need to get the message right so that the other guys will know how wrong they are.
In the end, it's a disappointing display of hubris.
Although Mr. Brooks makes some excellent suggestions for how the teachings of Jesus could be put into practice, there are a few things that bother me about his column. The first is that there is an implicit assumption that those dang liberals are NOT doing those things and that it is up to the social conservatives to show them the way, but in essence to shoe them up. It isn't to do these things out of the non-judgmental love of one's neighbor that Christ taught as the Second Great Commandment, but because presumably that will stop the decline of church membership and will return the country to some mythical Christian identity. As someone else said, where is the humility? Where is the recognition that all are sinners, no matter what path they follow in life? His prescription seems to stem more from a belief that he and other "social conservatives" are morally superior to the socially liberal, they just need to get the message right so that the other guys will know how wrong they are.
In the end, it's a disappointing display of hubris.
20
"The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other."
I mean, sure. And similarly, this could also be the "defining face" of Heavy Metal enthusiasts, the Star Trek Fandom, or the ancient brotherhood of All Those Americans Who Still Put Vegetables in Jell-O. So if you were a bookie and your livelihood depended on it, which of these four groups would you give the worst odds?
I mean, sure. And similarly, this could also be the "defining face" of Heavy Metal enthusiasts, the Star Trek Fandom, or the ancient brotherhood of All Those Americans Who Still Put Vegetables in Jell-O. So if you were a bookie and your livelihood depended on it, which of these four groups would you give the worst odds?
3
I have a better idea. How about NO MORE culture wars.
The culture wars have devastated this country. No, they haven't rusted our bridges or made rubble of our roads, but they have done far, far worse harm to this country.
The "culture wars" fueled mostly by rear-guard action by conservative reactionaries have destroyed the fabric of America by pitting American against American. No longer do we look at our fellows as compatriots, but as "red or blue staters" and the various views and opinions that come from that label.
The culture wars have made a ruin of the cultural fabric of this country, leading to the dysfunction that runs our government and is the biggest stumbling block to solving our problems, as we confuse "social issues" with real pragmatic issues revolving around the economy, foreign policy, health, and other infrastructure needs.
There isn't a SINGLE benefit to this country that a thread of the culture wars has brought, but they have brought the greatest country on this planet to its knees -- for no purpose other than salve the egos of the perpetrators, and elect corrupt dysfunctional politicians to office.
Enough.
The culture wars have devastated this country. No, they haven't rusted our bridges or made rubble of our roads, but they have done far, far worse harm to this country.
The "culture wars" fueled mostly by rear-guard action by conservative reactionaries have destroyed the fabric of America by pitting American against American. No longer do we look at our fellows as compatriots, but as "red or blue staters" and the various views and opinions that come from that label.
The culture wars have made a ruin of the cultural fabric of this country, leading to the dysfunction that runs our government and is the biggest stumbling block to solving our problems, as we confuse "social issues" with real pragmatic issues revolving around the economy, foreign policy, health, and other infrastructure needs.
There isn't a SINGLE benefit to this country that a thread of the culture wars has brought, but they have brought the greatest country on this planet to its knees -- for no purpose other than salve the egos of the perpetrators, and elect corrupt dysfunctional politicians to office.
Enough.
18
While I normally agree with Mr. Brooks, I found myself quite upset at this proposed pseudo-compromise. First of all, this article assumes that Christianity is truly in decline, which I see no evidence of; white Christians are still by far the group with the most access to rights in this country, despite what polls say. Even beyond that fact, Mr. Brooks conflated social conservatives with Christians in a highly unproductive way. The article he quotes from TIME practically asks conservative Christians to retreat, radicalize, and prepare for a time when they will prevail -- that is extremist rhetoric. Mr. Brooks added fire to that by suggesting that, rather than retreating entirely, they support social works and provide social services that the government and other secular NGOs do not. As a reminder, that is what Hamas did in Palestine to gain support. This is not a healthy strategy. We should not be asking the social conservatives to radicalize, and we should not be disguising this radicalization in terms of sincere, gentle, socially-responsible faith. That is the way extremism starts--alienation, retreat, consolidation, public relations, etc. I am not denying the power of spirituality, and I am not saying it doesn't exist in Christians -- this article is simply an unhelpful conflation of the faithful, the faithful conservative, and the conservative using faithful rhetoric.
11
"The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other. Those are the people who converse with us about the transcendent in everyday life."
An excellent prescription and one with which I think conservatives would find common cause with the more liberal spectrum of Christianity.
As an aside, I would note that this kind of hands-on Christianity has been practiced in exemplary fashion by a well-known born-again Christian from Georgia who was the nation's 39th President.
An excellent prescription and one with which I think conservatives would find common cause with the more liberal spectrum of Christianity.
As an aside, I would note that this kind of hands-on Christianity has been practiced in exemplary fashion by a well-known born-again Christian from Georgia who was the nation's 39th President.
5
Who, exactly, is fixated on sex? I know no social conservatives who are the slightest bit interested in interfering in any way with the private sexual activities of people. In fact, most would definitely rather not know and would prefer not to be dragged into the left's very public discussions, which often go into graphic detail on sexuality, gender, etc. (Just look at the recent fixation of The Times on transgenders.)
The problem is when social conservatives are forced to condone it. Like most people, they don't appreciate having others impose their beliefs on them. (Sound familiar?)
The problem is when social conservatives are forced to condone it. Like most people, they don't appreciate having others impose their beliefs on them. (Sound familiar?)
6
The social troubles to which Mr. Brooks suggests social conservatives address themselves are either caused by or increased by a rejection of traditional values. He would like social conservatives to make themselves available to clean up the mess.
2
I am a flaming liberal for social equity and justice. I love being Catholic. Today, I find myself agreeing with David--the job of Christians and others of good faith is to 'serve as messengers of love, dignity...communion and grace.'
Fighting and alienating others can only fail and result in a chaotic and disparate society. Who wants to live in a group like that?
Fighting and alienating others can only fail and result in a chaotic and disparate society. Who wants to live in a group like that?
3
It's interesting that Mr. Brooks - a divorced Jewish man, too young to have experienced the "sexual revolution" of the '60's - writes so authoritatively about the sanctity of marriage, the uplifting morals of evangelical Christians, and the horrors brought on by sex. Give me a break.
19
All Christians and cultural Christians need to do is to connect with the fundamental Christian message, which is that everyone is welcome, everyone belongs.
No one is born a Christian; anyone can become one. There is no master race, no chosen people.
The "social conservative" issues, as Pope Francis has emphasized, are peripheral to the central message of Christianity, which is that everyone belongs. That is a very powerful message for a world trapped in sectarian conflict.
No one is born a Christian; anyone can become one. There is no master race, no chosen people.
The "social conservative" issues, as Pope Francis has emphasized, are peripheral to the central message of Christianity, which is that everyone belongs. That is a very powerful message for a world trapped in sectarian conflict.
3
One does not need a Christian vocabulary to investigate and discuss what is important in life and to a society. This discussion and thought has gone on throughout history and in all cultures. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Cicero, Confucius, Hammurabi, and countless others engaged in these thoughts centuries prior to the birth of Christ. Christian vocabulary isn't the only moral vocabulary. Focusing upon just one philosophical/religious tradition, which has become fairly carved in stone through recent centuries of tradition and canon law, is as likely to stifle and constrain thought as to provide the necessary tools for solutions to our current problems. One tradition does not hold a monopoly on either wisdom or living well.
There are many challenges related to modern society, notably the relative isolation that a highly mobile population can cause. But... a lot of the social change we see is a natural reaction to economic and technological change. The ways of the village aren't workable in today's world.
Some of the issues mentioned here are almost laughable. Divorce was decided by our society over half a century ago. Contraception? So widely accepted for so many decades that one must wonder if those who still passionately fight it aren't in rebellion against equality for women. Pre-marital sex? The prohibition arises from a time when people married a decade younger than they do today, contraception was absent, marriages were arranged, paternity tests didn't exist
There are many challenges related to modern society, notably the relative isolation that a highly mobile population can cause. But... a lot of the social change we see is a natural reaction to economic and technological change. The ways of the village aren't workable in today's world.
Some of the issues mentioned here are almost laughable. Divorce was decided by our society over half a century ago. Contraception? So widely accepted for so many decades that one must wonder if those who still passionately fight it aren't in rebellion against equality for women. Pre-marital sex? The prohibition arises from a time when people married a decade younger than they do today, contraception was absent, marriages were arranged, paternity tests didn't exist
8
This is where all of you "Conservatives" fail. Your premise is completely erroneous. Families are not frayed because of sex, they are frayed because the American society has surrendered to the powers of concentrated wealth, and no one has a potion to escape. Hope for gaining control of financial stability is a dead aspiration, and fear of destitution has made everyone look out for number one (themselves).
This landscape has been created by the economic "Conservatives", and the social conservatives have been completely quiet, or worse, supportive. Also, religious leaders on the right supported giving all of America's resources to the very few. So, when you speak about sex, you are lost “David Brooks”. No one wants to be a part of your movement that gives everything to a few, and turns everything else in the world into a pitiful ghetto.
This landscape has been created by the economic "Conservatives", and the social conservatives have been completely quiet, or worse, supportive. Also, religious leaders on the right supported giving all of America's resources to the very few. So, when you speak about sex, you are lost “David Brooks”. No one wants to be a part of your movement that gives everything to a few, and turns everything else in the world into a pitiful ghetto.
13
Someone is doing exactly what Mr Brooks recommends. His name is Pope Francis.
17
"Social conservatives could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love."
Now if they could only practice what they preach.
Now if they could only practice what they preach.
15
As for encouraging more conservative activism which nurtures stable families, works for equality in places where it’s lacking, builds community institutions, and addresses joblessness, spiritual poverty, and transcendence, social liberals do those things all the time, so engaging in them wouldn't distinguish conservatives. Performed in good faith, the only thing such actions do is to increase the peace. So what real use could they be in the effort to revive a culture war?
The Court’s decision on gay marriage doesn’t constitute a setback for “Christianity” or “conservatives.” It's a step forward. The main problem with conservative opposition to gay marriage is that there are few things one can do in life that are more profoundly conservative than entering into a legal marriage to form a family.
I disagree that “Christianity” is in decline in the United States. I’m not Catholic, for example, but under the leadership of the current Pope, my opinion of the Catholic Church has improved tremendously and I am interested in what the Church has to say and offer. If "evangelicals" are in decline, I don’t think less interest in “Christianity” is the reason why.
Intolerance is.
I expect social conservatives to change their positions on gay marriage.
The Court’s decision on gay marriage doesn’t constitute a setback for “Christianity” or “conservatives.” It's a step forward. The main problem with conservative opposition to gay marriage is that there are few things one can do in life that are more profoundly conservative than entering into a legal marriage to form a family.
I disagree that “Christianity” is in decline in the United States. I’m not Catholic, for example, but under the leadership of the current Pope, my opinion of the Catholic Church has improved tremendously and I am interested in what the Church has to say and offer. If "evangelicals" are in decline, I don’t think less interest in “Christianity” is the reason why.
Intolerance is.
I expect social conservatives to change their positions on gay marriage.
105
As a society I wish we would stop trying to squeeze modern relevancy out of tired old 'Christian' habits and traditions of The Church.. it just won't bend to be the inclusive, non-judgmental spirit of the Christ that emerges in analysis like the Jesus Seminar project. Idea: create a new synthesis of the major spiritual streams (Judeo-Christian, Islam, Buddhism, Taosim, Hinduism..) based upon the common wisdom found through comparative scholars such as Eliade, forge a new path that takes back the notion of sacred ritual and symbol untethered from these corrupt dogmatic (conservative) institutions.. and jettison the remainder. Isn't that the radical climate that these traditions originally formed under?
5
I'm an evangelical only in the loosest sense--I adhere to strong Christian values that don't attach to any worldly group seeking to salvage what's being lost to secularism or what's already lost. The only evangelical political group I can stomach are the Jim Wallis/Sojourners folks, and them only so far. Perhaps David Brooks takes his cue from their emphasis upon compassion and good works.
What Christianity needs today is more a sense of its separateness from secular society, but it doesn't need to be sectarian--like the Amish or any evangelical group. To be truly "in the world and not of it", as a seemingly long-forgotten Christian slogan has it, is the proper aim. This requires a new theology, a re-reading of scripture where God's ways and values are always different from those of this world--not God's creation, but the spirit of the world Jesus repeatedly opposes, esp in the gospel of John.
Anyone willing to engage in such theological discussion can contact me at [email protected].
What Christianity needs today is more a sense of its separateness from secular society, but it doesn't need to be sectarian--like the Amish or any evangelical group. To be truly "in the world and not of it", as a seemingly long-forgotten Christian slogan has it, is the proper aim. This requires a new theology, a re-reading of scripture where God's ways and values are always different from those of this world--not God's creation, but the spirit of the world Jesus repeatedly opposes, esp in the gospel of John.
Anyone willing to engage in such theological discussion can contact me at [email protected].
The "Christian" community is losing members because they preach hate and exclusion. There is a 180 degree difference between real Christians--those who subscribe to and PRACTICE "a faith built on selfless love" and the political social conservatives. They are not the same and I venture to say there is little overlap. As such, these "social conservatives" are not equipped to repair anything.
The model to look at is Leadership Conference of Women Religious--they preach all the good stuff and probably act before they speak.
The model to look at is Leadership Conference of Women Religious--they preach all the good stuff and probably act before they speak.
9
While Mr. Brooks tries to spread calm among Christian Evangelicals in the face of increasing rejection of their assault on our constitutional separation of church and state, perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. This could begin with a thorough reading of The Jefferson Bible, written (or in fact cut and pasted) by none other than our beloved founder, Thomas Jefferson – he of the tattered notion of a Wall of Separation.
Jefferson wrote that “Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God.” He called the writers of the New Testament “ignorant, unlettered men” who produced “superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” He dismissed the concept of the Trinity as “mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” He believed that the clergy used religion as a “mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves” and that “in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.” And he wrote in a letter to John Adams that “the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
Surprised? So, believe what you choose, but our nation is far safer if we re-embrace the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State.
Jefferson wrote that “Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God.” He called the writers of the New Testament “ignorant, unlettered men” who produced “superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” He dismissed the concept of the Trinity as “mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” He believed that the clergy used religion as a “mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves” and that “in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.” And he wrote in a letter to John Adams that “the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
Surprised? So, believe what you choose, but our nation is far safer if we re-embrace the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State.
10
It is one thing to be Christian, to look to the golden rule, to be a decent moral person. But when was that ever the case for most Christians? Just look at all the harm done by Christian nations over the centuries. The list is almost infinite. Couple that with forgiveness and being Christian means you can say you are a good person even as you hustle this or scam that or do who knows what. Weep a bit on national TV and it will be just alright. You will be forgiven. One of my life long rules is this. I respect those who are truly christian individuals and I never trust anyone who feels the need to tell me they are a Christian. As soon as some fellow leans into you and speaks of his faith you are usually about to fleeced in some way or other.
7
Without the hatred of right wing, fundamentalist Christians, we will be a more civil and moral society.
13
I've just read David Brooks' book "Road to Character" and loved it. I just read this piece and couldn't get through it. It is woefully unfair to jumble all Christians together into one monolithic entity with such conservative views. Apparently Mr. Brooks believes that describing this in the second paragraph as "orthodox Christian positions" is enough to let the reader know that he's talking about a specific kind of Christian. Irresponsible to say the least. Please brush up on the stance of the UCC, the ELCA, and the many other progressive Christian churches who don't believe in the same kind of God or Christ that the more conservative denominations do. It's reports like this one that continue to make it so that Americans think Christians are Christians and that we/they all believe the same. Shame.
8
Not so scriptural. Jesus was silent on gay people and gay marriage. Correction.
8
David Brooks continues to challenge our thinking with his evolving view of secular humanism informed by traditional spiritual values divorced from religious dogmatism as the new Weltanshaung to deal with the demands of the shift to the post-Westphalian era.We have far too few thought leaders in that realm. I don’t always agree with his views, but I always look forward to the next installment from his globally urbane mind.
When I think of social conservatives, I think of groups like Focus on the Family.
In response to the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage, FotF asked for donations to "help save and strengthen even more marriages according to God's design."
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/media/daily-broadcast/responding-to-the-...
In response to the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage, FotF asked for donations to "help save and strengthen even more marriages according to God's design."
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/media/daily-broadcast/responding-to-the-...
4
As a liberal Christian myself, I was also thinking Christians could continue to be leaders in advocating a social contract built on "selfless love"; who point out "how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other"; who lead the conversation "about the transcendent in everyday life." I just don't see how that has much to do with social conservatism. Those values were radical in Jesus' day—they got Jesus crucified, please recall—and they're radical still.
6
Why haven't Conservative Christians in the U. S. been fighting for health care for all Americans? Isn't that what Jesus would have done?
13
David, I read and reread your column - it is all about "Christianity", i.e., the organized religion that takes its name from "Christ". "Christianity" has been developing for over 2000 years, encompassing periods including Dark Ages, enlightenment, inquisition, and more - certainly not a homogeneous entity. Nowhere in your column do I find a mention of Christ (or Jesus, as we Jews call him). What would Jesus write, as a comment?
6
Post-Christian nation?! I don't think so David. But this was written for your Evangelical Christian friends and their worldview. There are those who don't belong to that sect (and surprise - many of us who don't belong also don't vote Republican) who find the latest court decisions as a 'it's about time' moment and doesn't threaten their christian worldview. But the SCOTUS decision on capital punishment must given them and may you too David a certain warmth in your 'loving' hearts.
7
I am a Christian. The Bible teaches that God abhors adultery, false witness, divisive talk, murder, and so on. I believe that. However, I also believe that God is the one to do the abhorring. My redeemer taught that we are to love one another. He did not teach that we are to judge or condemn one another.
I am called to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and clothe the naked. Both in a literal and figurative sense.
The socially conservative cultural warriors of your column do not fit well within the teachings of my faith. Nor do they WANT to.
Their version of faith in action, filled with anger and judgement, with sputter out, like all fires do, eventually. You shall know them by the fruits of their actions.
I am called to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and clothe the naked. Both in a literal and figurative sense.
The socially conservative cultural warriors of your column do not fit well within the teachings of my faith. Nor do they WANT to.
Their version of faith in action, filled with anger and judgement, with sputter out, like all fires do, eventually. You shall know them by the fruits of their actions.
14
As a card-carrying member of the American Humanist Association (AHA), & somewhat in line with David’s comments, here’s my message to people who consider themselves Christians: Though I’ve had doubts all my adult life, I still considered myself one of you up until about 10 years ago when I decided I was an agnostic Humanist and joined the AHA. Here’s why:
I think you have to accept REALITY first & then go from there, and e.g., evolution is reality as far as I can tell. Science gives us the best conception of the nature of reality. Nothing does that better that I’ve seen.
I find I want the happiness & well-being of humanity & will work for that & find fulfillment in that whether God exists or not.
But the final nail in the coffin for me was the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed religious people overly obsessed with constraining the freedom of others to practice consensual sexuality as they like. The overwhelming support in this country by the “Religious Right” for starting the War in Iraq especially, was the end of traditional religion for me. Unnecessary war is murder, the culpability for which lies in those who gave the orders, not the soldiers who had to follow them, but complicity lies with those who enabled the guilty & gave support to their decision.
“Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.” Robert Ingersoll
I think you have to accept REALITY first & then go from there, and e.g., evolution is reality as far as I can tell. Science gives us the best conception of the nature of reality. Nothing does that better that I’ve seen.
I find I want the happiness & well-being of humanity & will work for that & find fulfillment in that whether God exists or not.
But the final nail in the coffin for me was the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed religious people overly obsessed with constraining the freedom of others to practice consensual sexuality as they like. The overwhelming support in this country by the “Religious Right” for starting the War in Iraq especially, was the end of traditional religion for me. Unnecessary war is murder, the culpability for which lies in those who gave the orders, not the soldiers who had to follow them, but complicity lies with those who enabled the guilty & gave support to their decision.
“Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.” Robert Ingersoll
8
It's really too bad you don't read these comments, David. You would learn more about things than from all those tonie intellectual books and articles you extol. This piece makes me think you never read any of those texts.
3
David, just go ahead and blame the California drought on Americas moral decline. Its faster and makes more sense than your argument for religion in general and Christianity in particular.
Social conservatives could have been all the things you described . Too bad they sold out for a few tax cuts
Social conservatives could have been all the things you described . Too bad they sold out for a few tax cuts
8
Maybe David Brooks is trying to say something similar to what Nicholas Kristof wrote a few days ago, except on a domestic setting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-hes-je...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-hes-je...
1
Mr Brooks,are you sure you know what "conservative" means? All the things you say could/should be done by conservatives are actually promoted by "liberals". And the people who call themselves "conservatives" are in fact reactionaries, trying to bring back whatever they consider, usually mistakenly, the good old days.
8
OK, so Christians, now you can feel what it's like to be marginalized (not really), in the minority (also not really), and forced into ghettos where you can live your life in purity, unsullied by the surrounding toxic culture (as if!).
Now, all you need is to make sure to grow beards, wear hats, eat special foods, and get a sense of humor. And you, too, could be having all the outcast fun enjoyed for generations by Jews. The neighbors may even desecrate your churches and graveyards... and forget golf clubs or admission to certain desirable academies!
Get real!
Now, all you need is to make sure to grow beards, wear hats, eat special foods, and get a sense of humor. And you, too, could be having all the outcast fun enjoyed for generations by Jews. The neighbors may even desecrate your churches and graveyards... and forget golf clubs or admission to certain desirable academies!
Get real!
6
many of the most committed left-leaning activists i know are christian -and engaged jews and muslims and buddhists -who see their politics and their activism emerging from their faiths and not in opposition to them.
4
Dorothy Day was a true believer but also a hard core Socialist, Brooks. And tough: she'd have you for lunch, or working the line at the Bowery soup kitchen. Me and my bummy friends would have come every day just for the pleasure of your service.
5
Terrific column! In other words, step up and put your Christianity to work in the service of its most positive values.
It sounds to me like David is suggesting that the Christians should behave like Christ. Wow, what a novel idea.
7
As Christianity goes, so goes America.
2
David Brooks calls for Christian Conservatives to repair a society, which they, like ISIS, have rendered, atomized and unforgiving torn apart. David Brooks claims social conservatives are well equipped to repair the fabric; I suppose because they are the primary force that rendered it in the first place.
To serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace, as David Brooks suggests, Conservatives Christians would have to re-read the Sermon on the Mount and its prescriptions for a blessed life, among them: Blessed are the meek: for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are the merciful: for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they will be called children of God. Christian Conservatives reading the Sermon on the Mount would ….. what? Cherish each in thought and in deed.…..
Perhaps, this is the change of course David Brooks speaks of, the change required to repair the damage Christian Conservatives have done to America and to Christianity.
To serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace, as David Brooks suggests, Conservatives Christians would have to re-read the Sermon on the Mount and its prescriptions for a blessed life, among them: Blessed are the meek: for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are the merciful: for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they will be called children of God. Christian Conservatives reading the Sermon on the Mount would ….. what? Cherish each in thought and in deed.…..
Perhaps, this is the change of course David Brooks speaks of, the change required to repair the damage Christian Conservatives have done to America and to Christianity.
8
I look forward to David Brooks' following up on his eloquent editorial with one arguing that Jesus wasn't kidding in Matthew 19:24:
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
6
Last week, in criticizing the Pope's encyclical on the environment, Mr. Brooks told us that "moral realists" should "appreciate systems that harness self-interest. Today, we learn that social conservatives "subscribe to a faith built on selfless love." Can we infer that social conservatives are more committed to environmental protection than the rest of us? Maybe this is case on Planet Brooks, but not so much here on Earth. It may be true that "many adults lack a spiritual vocabulary to think things through," but Brooks seems to be asking us to learn our "spiritual vocabulary" from people who believe that God hates fags.
5
Fine values Christians are not the belligerently fearful wing of the right wing.
Paradoxically, the election of a 'Bla ck' president increased racist fears, frantic extremism, and unprecedented disrespect for a sitting president by Elected GOP congressmen.
Fear of losing power can morph into panic then paranoia. Buying guns to prepare for federal invaders is delusional. Good Christians do not attack the poor as lazy takers, nor would they object to a higher minimum wage or capital gains tax increase.
Oligarchs may wrap themselves in 'traditional' values and the glory of an unregulated Free Market- but that isn't What faith-based means.
Paradoxically, the election of a 'Bla ck' president increased racist fears, frantic extremism, and unprecedented disrespect for a sitting president by Elected GOP congressmen.
Fear of losing power can morph into panic then paranoia. Buying guns to prepare for federal invaders is delusional. Good Christians do not attack the poor as lazy takers, nor would they object to a higher minimum wage or capital gains tax increase.
Oligarchs may wrap themselves in 'traditional' values and the glory of an unregulated Free Market- but that isn't What faith-based means.
7
Perhaps Christians in general could consider the excellent example of the Amish: pursue their tenets, and make no effort whatsoever to impose their ideas on the larger world. It would certainly be a change from their presumption of entitlement.
8
I think David has a romantic idea of social conservatism, based on growing up in Greenwich Village as the son of liberal parents. If he had actually grown up in a conservative, segregated small town in the deep south in the sixties, his idealized notions of small town Christian America would be quite different.
10
The triumph of homosexual marriage was as much about money, money, money as it was about "love" or "tolerance". (Of course, supporters of Friday's decision tend to be the least tolerant people I've seen in this country in my lifetime of 35+ years.) It won because big money and Wall Street wanted it. I'm not sure WHY big money wanted it so much, but they did, including those who give to Republicans and the vast majority of CEO's.
Many of the right are now agreeing with many on the left that big corporations have too much power. And I think that is the next fight. While we must fight for our First Amendment rights of speech and religion, those that many in the gay rights movement would want to remove from us, we also must fight (and join forces with the left when necessary) to harm those in big business who took our votes and then stabbed us in the back on this issue.
Many of the right are now agreeing with many on the left that big corporations have too much power. And I think that is the next fight. While we must fight for our First Amendment rights of speech and religion, those that many in the gay rights movement would want to remove from us, we also must fight (and join forces with the left when necessary) to harm those in big business who took our votes and then stabbed us in the back on this issue.
1
What a confused mess. Religion (all religion) is the problem, not the solution. Once we accept the law of some god over civil law, anything the self-appointed messengers of god say can be used (and is) to justify even the worst atrocities. Religion tears apart the social fabric. Dogma kills freedom of thought and speech. Putting someone's religious beliefs, no matter how cruel or bizarre, over the rule of law in a society leads to anarchy and the law of the strongest over the weak.
8
Christians fear their religious institutions will lose their tax-exempt status? I am a Christian and I for one would LOVE to see religious institutions lose some of their tax-exempt status and pay their fare share of property tax, water bills, gas bills and electric bills. My property taxes continue to rise each year yet institutions like Northwestern and Loyola Universities continue to build and expand their campuses. I'm all for spreading the wealth and the expense.
7
This author is perhaps the hope of both sides to a peaceful discussion on what the missing point really is. I started reading this with anger - and then zeroed on the point he's making - which is quite correct.
The job of Christians should always be to serve first and preach later. They should look to heal wounds more than judge. They should be a vessel of compassion more than protests. They should always focus on living a truly Christian life. That is what this painful world needs, and they are the only ones than can bring the healing of Jesus Christ to this world.
The job of Christians should always be to serve first and preach later. They should look to heal wounds more than judge. They should be a vessel of compassion more than protests. They should always focus on living a truly Christian life. That is what this painful world needs, and they are the only ones than can bring the healing of Jesus Christ to this world.
1
Utter nonsense Mr. Brooks. What religions truly need is to be taxed like other organizations and thereby enter the real world of real people here and now on Earth. I particularly resent having my tax dollars underwrite organizations that promote the insane belief that the best of life is some other place at some other time. We are living in the deadly result of that kind of believing.
18
As the millennial bubble ages, many pundits over-estimate its significance. Five years ago, millennials were portrayed as despondent about the job market and lived at home.
Then they turned into some sort of flower children who eschewed material possessions and traditional notions of home ownership.
Now they're in their thirties, and guess what, they're grooving home ownership.
The millennials are an interesting marketing construct, but fundamentally show many behaviors characteristic of and understood to be belonging to young people. And, yes, religion is one of those things, including lower rates of church attendance, higher rates of atheism, and all the rest. As they age, and become true adults, this too will change.
It's much ado about nothing. Culture war it is not.
Then they turned into some sort of flower children who eschewed material possessions and traditional notions of home ownership.
Now they're in their thirties, and guess what, they're grooving home ownership.
The millennials are an interesting marketing construct, but fundamentally show many behaviors characteristic of and understood to be belonging to young people. And, yes, religion is one of those things, including lower rates of church attendance, higher rates of atheism, and all the rest. As they age, and become true adults, this too will change.
It's much ado about nothing. Culture war it is not.
1
There are roughly 2 billion Christians in the world and about a third of those, or about 700 million, are evangelicals/conservatives. So there are a lot of us Christians who are happy to adjust to the times and are not engaged in culture wars. In my view Christianity is important to me and to society. In our church, we have seen a decline in the numbers of older people attending, but we have a large and growing number of children. We may have lost the millennials because the baby boomers failed to take their children to church, a sad loss. However, I see change coming. The Methodist Church in particular is open-minded and welcoming to anyone and everyone, just as Jesus was.
2
Does anyone disagree that "love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace" are valid aspirations of the human condition? I wouldn't think so. Yet, it is not the responsibility of our constitution to instill them. The constitution, which all of us as Americans are bound to uphold, was designed to promote the interests of the individual as far as those rights do not infringe upon the community. Nothing about same gender legal marriage impacts any religious recognition or definition of marriage. As a Catholic at worship, I do not have to see my priest bless a same gender marriage. As a Catholic baker I would have to make them a cake. As a Christian I hope that I would want to have them eat it too.
1
Evangelicals, insofar as their social and political activism is concerned, have been overly focused on what they're against and have overly relied on getting people "jacked up" as a way of activating their base. At some point, their incessant calls for outrage became worn out like an old song played too many times. If their response to recent events is to double down with more of the same, they will only further alienate Millennials. On the other hand, if Evangelicals could channel their penchant for outrage toward matters of social justice, that would resonate better with Millennials...but that would mean resurrecting social Christianity after generations of being overshadowed by an Evangelical Christianity that has, for generations, been more concerned with serving the interests of the powerful by using hot button moral issues as a way to dupe common folks into voting against their economic self interest.
5
The problems with too many Christians is that they truly anti-science and do not believe is scientific evidence. The other problem is that too many do not support Pope Francis' teaching on Creation Care and seem to only believe in future time - after death. This was made clear to me many times when I tried to engage them on issues of climate change, quantum physics and cosmology and even the most basic biology.
As long as that is their world view -- the life unexamined -- I am not concerned about the decline.
As long as that is their world view -- the life unexamined -- I am not concerned about the decline.
3
Mr. Brooks. You are eloquent, but still a cheerleader. You sound as if, "Come on, we are the good guys, let's show it." Christians are no different in character or behavior from anyone else. They merely have for reasons of comfort, inspiration or hope a faith; a faith replete with practitioners who have been abusive in pursuit of that faith and who rely on writings no likely more related to Jesus than a child's game of telephone. Perhaps the Christians' need to make this a Christian country and then cry "foul" when they are not in control leads to an alienation of us who don't find this welcoming. Every time a non Christian objects to Christians imposing their beliefs on others is not really a war on Christianity unless Christians feel they are the sovereign power. Non Christians really aren't at war if they do not want Christian symbols on public lands. Non Christians haven't attached the spirituality of Xmas, commerce did that long ago.
But, Mr. Brooks, please direct your words to leaders in the Christian community (whether they be clergy or TV personalities) who themselves are stirring the pot, leading the troops to try to establish Christian control and creating a sense of alienation among those who find this odious. As long as they have the podium we masses are not likely to have much impact on the cultural war by doing good deeds.
But, Mr. Brooks, please direct your words to leaders in the Christian community (whether they be clergy or TV personalities) who themselves are stirring the pot, leading the troops to try to establish Christian control and creating a sense of alienation among those who find this odious. As long as they have the podium we masses are not likely to have much impact on the cultural war by doing good deeds.
2
I hear your compassion in the face of this dilemma. Not just compassion for people who you feel have lost their way without the strictures and structures of a social order founded on Christianity, but compassion for people whose identity and understanding of the world is dependent on the Christian narrative. Both are in trouble.
While a more modern, structured and cohesive secular morality is evolving, it does not yet have the authority of consensus. But the hope that a religion founded 2000 years ago can adapt to modern society in our global village is, in my opinion, faint. (Although I must say Pope Francis is giving it his best shot.)
Those of faith would, of course, argue otherwise, and would explain everything through the lens of the biblical narrative. I can't argue with faith. No one can.
But I can hope that the basic moral principles shared by all the great religions – those that elaborate on the "do unto others" rule with the aim of guiding a peaceful, cooperative and tolerant society – will be preserved and strengthened, even while the myths and intolerances of fundamentalist interpretations burn themselves out.
While a more modern, structured and cohesive secular morality is evolving, it does not yet have the authority of consensus. But the hope that a religion founded 2000 years ago can adapt to modern society in our global village is, in my opinion, faint. (Although I must say Pope Francis is giving it his best shot.)
Those of faith would, of course, argue otherwise, and would explain everything through the lens of the biblical narrative. I can't argue with faith. No one can.
But I can hope that the basic moral principles shared by all the great religions – those that elaborate on the "do unto others" rule with the aim of guiding a peaceful, cooperative and tolerant society – will be preserved and strengthened, even while the myths and intolerances of fundamentalist interpretations burn themselves out.
1
"The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other. Those are the people who converse with us about the transcendent in everyday life." It would serve you well to point out that the people who have always performed this work quietly and out of the spotlight are the nuns.
2
The American progressive left, drifting, as all left-wing movements must, ever closer toward totalitarianism, apparently won't rest until every dissenting voice is silenced, or literally imprisoned. Intolerant? You've got to be kidding. The Left's idea of diversity is that you will agree with every single thing they believe, or be cast out. But, whatever...the smiley-faced banalities of PC culture are already wearing thin, even among liberals themselves. The lack of intellectual rigor and/or intellectual dishonesty of the Left renders them somewhat useless, if not defenseless in the need to consider and honestly debate the constitutional conflict set in motion by Obergefell. So we'll have it over here on the right, where rational thought and spirited disagreement is still allowed to flourish. You know...the opposite of a college campus. To be clear, libs; most of us, including the Christians, couldn't possibly care less who you marry. It is true that many Christians believe there is a biblical proscription of gay marriage (never mind Muslims, who have a uniquely gruesome way of dealing with homosexuals in the hellish countries they control). They will have to get over that now. The pertinent question concerns the legal soundness of Obergefell, its long-term ramifications, and the way forward for that shrinking demo who still cherish our founding document. Meanwhile, if history is any guide, the Left will overreach, and the correction will be fun to watch.
1
"The American progressive left, drifting, as all left-wing movements must, ever closer toward totalitarianism..."
Hold on. We've just has a Supreme Court ruling against totalitarianism ... big government is no longer able to interfere with our right to marry who we love. So actually the left is drifting ... nay speeding ... AWAY from totalitarianism.
Hold on. We've just has a Supreme Court ruling against totalitarianism ... big government is no longer able to interfere with our right to marry who we love. So actually the left is drifting ... nay speeding ... AWAY from totalitarianism.
1
the fundamental point seems to me very stark: an ideology that must either retreat into enclaves or persist in adversarial thinking has already proven itself bankrupt.
the problem with christianity is that it is a superstition. we simply can't afford to meet the future with a "god says so" mentality. people who dissent from that fact are not helping, only impeding, the search for solutions.
the whole "we live in a society" paragraph struck me as delusional and hyperbolic. the people i know and meet are uniformly calm, sensible, caring, committed. crime is down. murder is down, health is up, recreation of all kinds is up. the only angst i see is the fringe culture angst on "true detective".
indeed, we have children in poverty, adults without health care, a profligate life style and an economic engine that is careening toward climate disaster. but those are real problems. they deserve to be addressed with real solutions.
"culture war" is just a videogame that people play in their minds. it's not a real problem and it's not a prelude to any real solution to any real problem our society confronts.
time to move on.
the problem with christianity is that it is a superstition. we simply can't afford to meet the future with a "god says so" mentality. people who dissent from that fact are not helping, only impeding, the search for solutions.
the whole "we live in a society" paragraph struck me as delusional and hyperbolic. the people i know and meet are uniformly calm, sensible, caring, committed. crime is down. murder is down, health is up, recreation of all kinds is up. the only angst i see is the fringe culture angst on "true detective".
indeed, we have children in poverty, adults without health care, a profligate life style and an economic engine that is careening toward climate disaster. but those are real problems. they deserve to be addressed with real solutions.
"culture war" is just a videogame that people play in their minds. it's not a real problem and it's not a prelude to any real solution to any real problem our society confronts.
time to move on.
3
I have lived among social conservatives all my life and have seen very little of their private good deeds of which you speak. As full of hatred and violence as their public selves are, I know their private lives are not as good as you believe them to be. If they were not being given little plaques of acknowledgement and speeches of praise for every little thing they might do, I doubt you would see them lifting a finger for the needy
5
Mr. Brooks' column virtually denies the existence of a Christian community that is not, to use his term, "conservative."
The entire column sees the plight of "conservative" or, again, using his term, "orthodox" Christianity through the lens of one who apparently doesn't realize that there is a smaller but much more vibrant and hopeful---as opposed to defeated, depressed and bitter---Christian community comprised of Christians who are evolving and pushing the envelope theologically, spiritually, culturally and socially.
That he describes Mr. Dreher's book as "truly outstanding" testifies to the blinders worn by Mr. Brooks.
Some of the "fundamental norms" of Mr. Dreher are indeed being diminished or even set aside. But many of our most prominent theologians have been about the business of presciently redefining those norms for nearly five decades. Their work has not been relegated to the dusty shelves of basement stacks. So, where have Mr. Brooks/Mr. Dreher been and what have they been reading?
Those of us on the more progressive end of the Christian spectrum are seldom, if ever, spoken of in the media. Perhaps we should be. We're doing and have been doing what Mr. Brooks suggests "orthodox" Christians do---in my case, for three decades. And we don't live in a "beleaguered climate."
It is 2015. I suggest Mr. Brooks stop grieving for the 1950's and join us a decade-and-a-half into a new century.
The entire column sees the plight of "conservative" or, again, using his term, "orthodox" Christianity through the lens of one who apparently doesn't realize that there is a smaller but much more vibrant and hopeful---as opposed to defeated, depressed and bitter---Christian community comprised of Christians who are evolving and pushing the envelope theologically, spiritually, culturally and socially.
That he describes Mr. Dreher's book as "truly outstanding" testifies to the blinders worn by Mr. Brooks.
Some of the "fundamental norms" of Mr. Dreher are indeed being diminished or even set aside. But many of our most prominent theologians have been about the business of presciently redefining those norms for nearly five decades. Their work has not been relegated to the dusty shelves of basement stacks. So, where have Mr. Brooks/Mr. Dreher been and what have they been reading?
Those of us on the more progressive end of the Christian spectrum are seldom, if ever, spoken of in the media. Perhaps we should be. We're doing and have been doing what Mr. Brooks suggests "orthodox" Christians do---in my case, for three decades. And we don't live in a "beleaguered climate."
It is 2015. I suggest Mr. Brooks stop grieving for the 1950's and join us a decade-and-a-half into a new century.
4
This is one of Mr. Brooks more humorous columns. He is rather good at propagating Christian dogma: the Christian need to be martyred, to be rejected and unappreciated for all their good works.
Let us be clear about one thing: what drives many Christians, especially those, like their Islamist cohorts, vying for public opinion is political power: the ability to inflict their lifestyle and "morality" and views on the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
Who is forcing Christians to marry members of their own gender, to engage in premarital sex, to have abortions, to divorce their spouses? Remember also that it was the evangelical neocons in the Bush administration who instigated the Iraq war in the hope that it would inflame the Middle East into a conflagration and hasten the Second Coming, allowing them to Rapture.
This so-called "culture war" is all about the political power to dictate what people do in their bedrooms and how they treat each other.
A very humorous column indeed.
Let us be clear about one thing: what drives many Christians, especially those, like their Islamist cohorts, vying for public opinion is political power: the ability to inflict their lifestyle and "morality" and views on the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
Who is forcing Christians to marry members of their own gender, to engage in premarital sex, to have abortions, to divorce their spouses? Remember also that it was the evangelical neocons in the Bush administration who instigated the Iraq war in the hope that it would inflame the Middle East into a conflagration and hasten the Second Coming, allowing them to Rapture.
This so-called "culture war" is all about the political power to dictate what people do in their bedrooms and how they treat each other.
A very humorous column indeed.
3
Time was the government provided for the common defence and general welfare regardless of your religious affiliation. Now it's all about billionaire worship, free market fundamentalism, the government isn't the solution it's the problem. We are a government of the people. The people have blessed this. What does that say about our values?
3
I love this egotistical, absurd essay as something that Samuel Beckett might have written while too drunk to speak. As a group, Christians are on give day okay and non-bothersome. Then, they read some scripture and decide that someone down the road is doing something ungodly and bam!, they want it stopped. The idea of "them" pulling up and creating non-interfering enclaves is the greatest idea since indoor plumbing.
2
I've been hoping that someone would tell people that there's a "Christian left" as well as a "Christian right." As a Christian who's given up on organized religion but not on faith, I wish that more Christians would consider that phrase "What would Jesus do?" and realize that his message was love, not exclusion. If he were walking around Washington DC or New York or New Orleans today, what would he think of the braying evangelists of hate?
16
Do you suppose he would be riding along in a parade where, for example, parade participants sometimes dress up as religious figures in debased and vulgar mockery of those who have consecrated their lives to him? Was it hatred that drove him to tell the prostitute to "sin no more"? To remind his followers that marriage had been, since the beginning of creation, profoundly rooted in the one flesh union of man and woman? or do you suppose the sins he died for then no longer apply to us now?
You ask "What would Jesus do?" and then ignore what he did. Jesus sought out sin, addressed it, and then told participants to quit participating in the sin. His message was one of love but not one of undisciplined love.
No one is asking those who are religious to change their beliefs. We just ask that they accept other beliefs. Truly religious people tend to have "no doubts", certainly a dangerous position for any less than perfect human. I do not want the Christian right to force me to believe in their religion anymore than I would want a Muslim or a Hindu to force me to believe theirs. Beyond that it is a false worry to think the law will force churches to break their vows. After all divorce has been legal for years and we do not force the Catholic Church to marry anyone who has been divorced. It is their choice. Let's just all get along. Let governments worry about civil law and religion can worry about God's.
18
Yes, the problem with the Christian right is that they don't accept living in a pluralistic society. Before asking them to help, they need to learn to leave other people alone to live according to their own lights.
No one is asking those who are religious to change their beliefs
----------------------------
In Illinois the Catholic Church was given a choice: change your beliefs, or your are prohibited from all Adoption services in the state. Of course everyone knew that would end the Catholics' role in adoption in Illinois, as it did. Sorry, kids, Leviathan controls your childhood.
----------------------------
In Illinois the Catholic Church was given a choice: change your beliefs, or your are prohibited from all Adoption services in the state. Of course everyone knew that would end the Catholics' role in adoption in Illinois, as it did. Sorry, kids, Leviathan controls your childhood.
Christian and Social Conservative are not synonyms. There has always been at least two veins of Christianity. There are the fire and brimstone evangelical Christians focused on strict codes of behavior and original sin and redemption through belief in Jesus and who give significant weight to the Old Testament. And there are also the more tolerant, less literal, only God can judge, all sins are forgiven because Jesus died for our sins, good works Christians.
For the first group, any concession on cultural issues is equivalent to abandoning their religion. For the second group, the cultural war is an attack on their religious beliefs.
For the first group, any concession on cultural issues is equivalent to abandoning their religion. For the second group, the cultural war is an attack on their religious beliefs.
4
Seems to me that Christianity has survived crusades, corrupt leadership, heliocentrism, abiogenesis and even evolution. I suspect that it will survive the latest challenges as well-
5
Is Christianity losing its grip because values are changing, or is it more because those values are riddled with hypocrisy? Christians preach about the sanctity of life, yet so many seem to have no problem whatsoever about the death penalty! The Bible exalts the poor, yet so many Christians have no problem ignoring the poor!
Christianity is NOT the national religion (we supposedly don't have one), yet evangelicals would make it so. The Bible may preach against gays, but it was written in a time when they could not possibly have understood what being gay really meant, or the extent to which it exists, and probably existed even then. We know with some certainty that such a vacuum in knowledge existed when we hear all these claims that the earth is only 5,000 years old. The proposition that being homosexual was "an abomination" was something born out of fear of the unknown, not out of understanding.
The Bible says homosexuals should be put to death! Now, that's a nice piece of Christian thinking isn't it! What it really is compares more to voodoo than anything.
Christianity is a good thing if you look to the basic teachings, such as honesty, compassion, and love thy neighbor as yourself. However, when you take the Bible, and start "cherry picking" it's contradictory content, you start losing people who have the power to think. It's not so much that those basic teachings are lost, but orgnaized religion starts to lose its appeal.
Christianity is NOT the national religion (we supposedly don't have one), yet evangelicals would make it so. The Bible may preach against gays, but it was written in a time when they could not possibly have understood what being gay really meant, or the extent to which it exists, and probably existed even then. We know with some certainty that such a vacuum in knowledge existed when we hear all these claims that the earth is only 5,000 years old. The proposition that being homosexual was "an abomination" was something born out of fear of the unknown, not out of understanding.
The Bible says homosexuals should be put to death! Now, that's a nice piece of Christian thinking isn't it! What it really is compares more to voodoo than anything.
Christianity is a good thing if you look to the basic teachings, such as honesty, compassion, and love thy neighbor as yourself. However, when you take the Bible, and start "cherry picking" it's contradictory content, you start losing people who have the power to think. It's not so much that those basic teachings are lost, but orgnaized religion starts to lose its appeal.
8
A few obvious corrections:
1) Innocent life and evildoers do not necessarily form the same category, although actually Christians disagree with one another on the death penalty, too.
2) Christians provide more charity for the poor than all other religious and anti-religious cohorts. Religious people in general are more likely to give, and when they do, they give more - 4 times as much as you (A. Brooks, Who Really Cares).
3) Name the Evangelical Christian leader who has said he or she advocates making Christianity the state religion.
4) Killing homosexuals is not "a nice piece of Christian thinking"; it is not a piece of Christian thinking at all. That commandment appears in the Hebrew Bible's rules for Israelites.
5) Christianity's "good thing" and "basic teaching"? - really, there is only one fundamental teaching in the New Testament: Jesus Christ came to us in human form, and made himself a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. God provided a "work around" for a fallen world of sinners to enter heaven - and hey, since the definition of God's heaven is "holy", there can't be anything "unholy" (like us) there. Hence Jesus standing in our place. When God looks at Christians, he sees Jesus instead of us. And lets us in. That's the "basic teaching" and the "good thing", although of course we call it "Good News."
But not for you. You think you are like a potato, or maybe a squirrel. Come into existence, run around for a while, fall over dead, that's it. Read a Bible.
1) Innocent life and evildoers do not necessarily form the same category, although actually Christians disagree with one another on the death penalty, too.
2) Christians provide more charity for the poor than all other religious and anti-religious cohorts. Religious people in general are more likely to give, and when they do, they give more - 4 times as much as you (A. Brooks, Who Really Cares).
3) Name the Evangelical Christian leader who has said he or she advocates making Christianity the state religion.
4) Killing homosexuals is not "a nice piece of Christian thinking"; it is not a piece of Christian thinking at all. That commandment appears in the Hebrew Bible's rules for Israelites.
5) Christianity's "good thing" and "basic teaching"? - really, there is only one fundamental teaching in the New Testament: Jesus Christ came to us in human form, and made himself a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. God provided a "work around" for a fallen world of sinners to enter heaven - and hey, since the definition of God's heaven is "holy", there can't be anything "unholy" (like us) there. Hence Jesus standing in our place. When God looks at Christians, he sees Jesus instead of us. And lets us in. That's the "basic teaching" and the "good thing", although of course we call it "Good News."
But not for you. You think you are like a potato, or maybe a squirrel. Come into existence, run around for a while, fall over dead, that's it. Read a Bible.
2
How about this: the gay marriage battle is a conservative triumph. Instead of one-night trysts, we get stability in relationships, adoption, legal responsibilities and child-rearing. It is a conservative victory. Let's read that column.
9
What is wrong with one-night trysts? Both same-sex and hetero couples do it, and it's been going on for thousands of years. Saying it's a "conservative triumph" needlessly - and incorrectly - blames "one-night trysts" for society's wrongs. I know of and read about plenty of Christian folks in "stable" relationships who are immoral and can't raise a child properly to save their life.
"...The fundamental norms Christians have long been able to depend on no longer exist.” Oh, like love, hope, kindness, compassion, grace? When I observe people going about their day to day lives, I see them (including agnostics, atheists, apostates, and yes, religious people) acting on the basis of these norms.
Living a moral life is not contingent on identifying as a Christian. Implying that only orthodox Christians and social conservatives understand the value of these norms is condescending and arrogant.
Living a moral life is not contingent on identifying as a Christian. Implying that only orthodox Christians and social conservatives understand the value of these norms is condescending and arrogant.
13
Conservatives seem lost in this cultural transformation, that demands more freedom, and inclusion of an ever more diversified society. Religious dogma is in retreat, as it should.
7
We no more live in a post-Christian society than we do a post-racial one. Christianity, particularly in the US, looms large in the legal structure and social norms of our society. But just as the "War on Christmas" had its political value for conservatives in rallying the troops, no doubt Mr Brooks' post-Christian boogeyman will resonate in the echo chambers of right-wing media in the coming election cycle. We nothing to fear but fear itself.
4
It almost sounds as if Brooks is himself lamenting the lack of conformity to an established set of norms from the distant past. Those norms weren't so great as I recall them. But a new set of norms are needed, including individual responsibility and respect for others. Why he thinks social conservatives can lead the way is beyond me.
8
The next "culture war" I'd like to see is the American people addressing the broken infrastructure of our Government - namely Congress and the State Senates. Large lobbyists have too much power, throw around too much money. That's the Culture War we need to save this country - return the Country to the American Voters.
(And yes, that would mean putting silly partisanship aside, a good thing, no?)
(And yes, that would mean putting silly partisanship aside, a good thing, no?)
15
And eliminating gerrymandering. It is one thing to say that states "can" establish impartial committees to deal with this, but will they? In our states' legislatures that would mean the same people who benefit politically from gerrymandering would decide to end it--what are the odds of that? And the chances of a Constitutional ammendment to deal with the issue is equally improbable.
The courts need to take a more hardened position on this. It should be absolutely illegal to gerrymander for any purpose.
The courts need to take a more hardened position on this. It should be absolutely illegal to gerrymander for any purpose.
1
It is all about sex of course, but religious people don't see it that way. They see it as a series of instructions from the bible. I happen to agree with the instructions but the religious conservatives I know don't seem to make any attempt, or at least they're very unsuccessful in practicing what they preach as it seems to be the preaching that's important. The evangelicals are the worst in our family when it comes to all of the social ills that you mention and I've always supposed that it's their failures to live up to social norms that causes them to seek some kind of a crutch for their lives. I just wish the crutch was more substantial. Christianity doesn't seem to require or reward good conduct, only belief in good conduct, while we secularists like to practice what we preach and live our values.
6
The founding fathers claimed all men were created equal. They just had a very narrow view of what a man was and being white and propertied were the prime considerations. God told them this was the case in the old testament. Jesus has white skin, blue eyes and light brown hair. It's in all the great art. He taught his followers to hate the sin and use the coercive power of government to heal the sinner. That is the purpose of government - to make you behave correctly according to Jesus.
While the range of Christianity extends across Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Unitarians, Mormons, Baptists, and many others, a truly large field of varying beliefs, we intuitively know who he is talking about. We may be headed toward the European level of religion, which is neither good nor bad, just different. The indifference to religion many now feel is a result of those of whom we know he is speaking missing the point. If Christians can impose their values on the nation, why can't Muslims, or Buddhists? Europeans became tired of it, and officially relegated religion to the sideline. Americans are getting tired of it, too.
As for Mr Brooks, I've read his articles and seen him many times on TV. I disagree with many of his views, but have never felt the need to view him as an enemy. He is grappling with a tough topic. Disagree or not, I wish I could do it as well.
As for Mr Brooks, I've read his articles and seen him many times on TV. I disagree with many of his views, but have never felt the need to view him as an enemy. He is grappling with a tough topic. Disagree or not, I wish I could do it as well.
7
"We live in a society plagued by formlessness and radical flux, in which bonds, social structures and commitments are strained and frayed. Millions of kids live in stressed and fluid living arrangements. Many communities have suffered a loss of social capital. Many young people grow up in a sexual and social environment rendered barbaric because there are no common norms. Many adults hunger for meaning and goodness, but lack a spiritual vocabulary to think things through."
Brilliant diagnosis. Without some kind of exterior shared values framework, "private" values end up close to meaningless, except in rare borderline situations. More exactly, "private" values mostly end up going with the flow.
Brilliant diagnosis. Without some kind of exterior shared values framework, "private" values end up close to meaningless, except in rare borderline situations. More exactly, "private" values mostly end up going with the flow.
3
The pace of cultural change is accelerating (in the West). Marriage is fading, and maybe even dying, except among the elite. But that's only one part of the change. Free speech is now under attack. The end of men is approaching. The end of work is approaching. Sustainablility is replacing deism as the root of morality. I have no doubt that other fundamental culture changes are happening off my radar screen. In a couple of generations, our culture will have changed as much from the 50's as travel changed from horseback to rocket ships. I say this in amazement, not in horror.
4
You say that freedom of speech is under attack. I disagree. If anything the recent social changes have increased freedom of speech. What is different, is that the voices of those that conservative Christians have sought to silence and intimidate are now being heard. The voices of gay and lesbian people, transgender people, non-believers, racial and ethnic minorities, feminists, and other marginalized people are rising to join the great American chorus. Social conservative voices are not being silenced, but they are finally being challenged on a more even cultural level. It's about time.
2
Religions must be progressive as humanity's investigation of life evolves. Now there is a growing collective consciousness of interconnectedness and universal equality that allows an understanding of anachronistic thinking as fit to it's time in human history, but no longer enlightening of the rapidly evolving noosphere. The time of learned men needed to inform the masses with dogmatic laws has past; now individuals will investigate life and choose connectedness within a larger and more personal moral awareness. It's all good.
3
Exactly.. Even though we no longer attend mass religious events, doesn’t mean we no longer are able to attain the Spirit of God…However, we are more likely to follower our inner light than a human dictator.
One of the problems with your premise, David, is that fundamentalists - right or left; religious or political - come at life with the answers, not the questions. They are more inclined to proscribe rules and require conformity than to struggle toward a commonality of goals - pursuit of happiness, if you will.
"Reweaving the sinews of society" is a journey that requires walking, together, with and in the shoes of our sisters and brothers. It requires respect, openness and humility. One must be prepared to be surprised, to learn, to discover that you were fundamentally wrong about a lot of things you thought were "gospel". It is not a problem to be solved, but a life long "conversation".
Not all social conservatives are fundamentalists - neither are all liberals enlightened beacons of hope for the poor. However, the social conservative Christians you are wooing in your piece, by definition of the stances they take on your list of "social issues", are fundamentalists. The likelihood of such leading society to a better place is remote. It is more likely and more hopeful that the downtrodden will find their voice and their collective power to become the leaven for a healthier culture and community thus saving the fundamentalist social conservatives from themselves.
"Reweaving the sinews of society" is a journey that requires walking, together, with and in the shoes of our sisters and brothers. It requires respect, openness and humility. One must be prepared to be surprised, to learn, to discover that you were fundamentally wrong about a lot of things you thought were "gospel". It is not a problem to be solved, but a life long "conversation".
Not all social conservatives are fundamentalists - neither are all liberals enlightened beacons of hope for the poor. However, the social conservative Christians you are wooing in your piece, by definition of the stances they take on your list of "social issues", are fundamentalists. The likelihood of such leading society to a better place is remote. It is more likely and more hopeful that the downtrodden will find their voice and their collective power to become the leaven for a healthier culture and community thus saving the fundamentalist social conservatives from themselves.
17
easchell, very nicely said!
Mr. Brooks your columns are insightful and deliberative as always. I find that what social conservative lack as a whole are the principles of tolerance and empathy. The willingness and ability to hear, understand and absorb the experiences, concerns and struggles of others; rather than see them thru the filters of their own moral beliefs. Empathy, in my opinion, is the ongoing process of understanding and engaging others thru their life experiences; not assuming we know what those might be but acknowledging what we don't know about others and allowing them to share that narrative. In my estimation, social conservative are too quick with a solution to what they assume are society's ills or moral failings. I've been a licensed clinical social worker for over 25 years, and this is an ongoing learning experience with everyone I encounter.
140
I'm not seeing a lot of tolerance and empathy for the 40% of Americans who believe in traditional marriage.
I agree with Mr. Brooks that the decline in interest in organized religion, specifically Christianity, has certainly done itself no favors in fighting so many battles about sex, which risks reducing a "rich, complex, and beautiful faith into a public obsession with sex."
But I am not so sanguine that there is much alternative. The obsession with sex has worked in the Christian pews, frankly, precisely because it is simple and is something the severely fragmented Protestant church in this country -- where increasingly every church is its own doctrinal authority and voice -- could all rally around.
For US Christianity to start to advocate something more complicated and profound, requires that US Christianity itself be capable of something more complicated and profound.
It is not clear the US churches -- especially the dominant and most numerous Protestant ones -- are capable of that. Ever since Falwell, they have flocked to the mundane and the shallow. And they have reaped a flock to fit.
But I am not so sanguine that there is much alternative. The obsession with sex has worked in the Christian pews, frankly, precisely because it is simple and is something the severely fragmented Protestant church in this country -- where increasingly every church is its own doctrinal authority and voice -- could all rally around.
For US Christianity to start to advocate something more complicated and profound, requires that US Christianity itself be capable of something more complicated and profound.
It is not clear the US churches -- especially the dominant and most numerous Protestant ones -- are capable of that. Ever since Falwell, they have flocked to the mundane and the shallow. And they have reaped a flock to fit.
8
Perhaps the term "social conservative" is too confining a label for the changes afoot in our culture. Its adherence to the status quo, traditional (family) and moral values just don't align with new currents of equality and inclusiveness whirling through cherished boundaries of what's right and wrong, good and bad. The trend towards equality among human beings has begun in earnest, beginning with the massively significant ecumenical guiding stewardship of the planet, with benefits that will be shared by global citizens equally; and continuing with the crumbling of boundaries between gender and race.
Mr. Brooks and others may need social labels, or niches, to position themselves in, but in a climate accelerated with the longing for an end to divisiveness, they will probably be temporary and increasingly irrelevant.
Mr. Brooks and others may need social labels, or niches, to position themselves in, but in a climate accelerated with the longing for an end to divisiveness, they will probably be temporary and increasingly irrelevant.
5
The "decline" of religion is more complicated than most people think. Church membership tanked during the Depression, but came roaring back after WWII. Membership in the Episcopal Church peaked in 1966--one year after my wife and I were confirmed--and has been in decline since. Part of the decline in church membership is surely related to people simply not believing in God in the way we were taught as children--I still consider myself a recovering Lutheran-- but economics also plays a role. 1966 may be the year in which real prosperity in this country peaked; economic well being has either been flat or in decline since 1974 for sure. Many of our institutions have also been in decline since, but I suspect economics is driving much of the process. It costs money to participate fully in society, even church and marriage. Let me just add that the sermon I heard Sunday included reference to the Court ruling on same sex marriage and the message was one of joyful thanksgiving.
6
Please do not confuse some conservative groups with Christians.
11
twstroud: Talk to Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson & Co. about that.
10
Mark
They do not define Christianity. In fact, I am sure that they would denounce Jesus were he alive today.
They do not define Christianity. In fact, I am sure that they would denounce Jesus were he alive today.
3
The two groups have enormous overlap. Republicans genuflect at their alters (literally and figuratively) and Christian churches campaign (violating IRS rules) for them in full view of the world. They're a big reason Republicans get elected (oh, and then there are gun owners!). No one here is confusing the two; they're practically one and the same.
1
Reading KMW of New York's ignorant and vindictive comments (liberals are “blowhards... all talk and no action”) those of us fed up with the blind opinions of hidebound religiosos might say, “we rest our case.”
What conservatives don’t fathom is that their relentless name-calling and derisive put-downs of fellow citizens who are trying to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem - calling environmentalists “tree-huggers” was one of the first that caught my ear, back in the 1970s - has had a corrosive effect on public discourse.
Anyone who thinks “liberals” and progressives are do-nothings should read a history of the United States, and learn who rescued kids from factories in the first Gilded Age, who championed clean food laws, Social Security, the Works Progress Administration, Medicare and Medicaid, Civil Rights, voting rights, and most recently the Affordable Care Act.
As for the notion that the Catholic Church will soon embrace all mankind with love, I doubt it. The Church’s hierarchy remains reluctant to confront priestly abuse, still refuses to ordain women as priests, still opposes birth control - even though having more kids than they may want burdens some faithful, and overpopulation exacerbates the world’s conflicts and ensures perennial starvation.
Until its leaders (not only an enlightened pope) embrace the teachings of their venerated saints, the Church will not be a significant player in America’s quest for social justice.
What conservatives don’t fathom is that their relentless name-calling and derisive put-downs of fellow citizens who are trying to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem - calling environmentalists “tree-huggers” was one of the first that caught my ear, back in the 1970s - has had a corrosive effect on public discourse.
Anyone who thinks “liberals” and progressives are do-nothings should read a history of the United States, and learn who rescued kids from factories in the first Gilded Age, who championed clean food laws, Social Security, the Works Progress Administration, Medicare and Medicaid, Civil Rights, voting rights, and most recently the Affordable Care Act.
As for the notion that the Catholic Church will soon embrace all mankind with love, I doubt it. The Church’s hierarchy remains reluctant to confront priestly abuse, still refuses to ordain women as priests, still opposes birth control - even though having more kids than they may want burdens some faithful, and overpopulation exacerbates the world’s conflicts and ensures perennial starvation.
Until its leaders (not only an enlightened pope) embrace the teachings of their venerated saints, the Church will not be a significant player in America’s quest for social justice.
46
Anecdotally, the Catholic Church could fill this void if it just de-emphasized sexuality and concentrated on social justice. I know a lot of "liberals" who besides espousing marriage equality (that's fine) are militant atheists (not fine). It might be palatable if they held some sort of belief system but these people (not all liberals granted) do not donate money to charity, do not donate food or used clothes for food and clothing drives, do not volunteer their time, do not visit the sick or those in jail. They don't do anything for anyone, apart from flying the rainbow flag, but consider themselves enlightened and denigrate Christians who do all of the above things.
If we remove the wedge issues of sexuality, these "liberals" would be exposed as the self-indulged libertines that they are. As for abortion, the Catholic Church is winning that argument among young people because ultrasounds and imaging does not lie.
Overall, Brooks's argument is very good as it relates to Catholics. I am not sure that the fervent evangelicals though are on the same wavelength.
If we remove the wedge issues of sexuality, these "liberals" would be exposed as the self-indulged libertines that they are. As for abortion, the Catholic Church is winning that argument among young people because ultrasounds and imaging does not lie.
Overall, Brooks's argument is very good as it relates to Catholics. I am not sure that the fervent evangelicals though are on the same wavelength.
Mr. Miller,
You are exactly the kind of liberal in which I am referring. You fit my description to a tee. Need I say more?
You are exactly the kind of liberal in which I am referring. You fit my description to a tee. Need I say more?
Mr. Miller,
You are like so many liberals -- angry.
You are like so many liberals -- angry.
I don't have the time to read 1300+ comments, but I want to make sure that readers recall that the New Testament does not condemn homosexuality. It's the other, often primitive/tribal, scriptural text that does that. It also features polygamy in its early books.
22
Why would Jesus re-invent the wheel? Everyone knew of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Leviticus. Jesus never mentioned burglary, either. Does that mean he had no problem with thievery? No mention of "abortion" by Jesus either, since it too was beyond the pale. There's the letter of the law - the Mosaic law - and there's the spirit of the law. Jesus: "Go, and sin no more." Lust was, and is, a Deadly Sin, no matter who is pitching, and who is catching. Self-abnegation was Jesus's way, the opposite of sexual license, or of frivolous marriages, like the woman at the well.
Take a look at ( Romans 1:26-27)
Not to be ungracious, but I'd like to refer you to Romans 1:26,27--nor would I like to start a debate on hermeneutics. Just a thought.
2
Searched for mainstream America, but I couldn't find it. Most people are just looking for liberty. Some select groups are bent on forcing their culture on the rest of the nation. I get it Mr. Brooks, live and let live.
5
"Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families."
Sounds a lot like what social workers used to do. You know, the liberal do-gooders that used to be held up as an example of what is wrong with our society by the conservatives.
Sounds a lot like what social workers used to do. You know, the liberal do-gooders that used to be held up as an example of what is wrong with our society by the conservatives.
28
Sir,
I’ve been a fan of yours for years and still am; but you are as uncomprehending as anyone.
The church is already doing social good. In 2012-2014 I took a 2-year sabbatical in Jordan where I volunteered my services as an attorney for refugees seeking resettlement in the US. Several members of my congregation take two weeks a year out of their busy lives to travel to Haiti or Thailand to deliver free medical and dental services. Our city-wide church community has a vital and successful ministry to the homeless.
But we also have a prophetic ministry to the society around us. God forbid that we should cease to teach the truth to our generation on precisely the point where it is most in need.
The sexual revolution is not primarily about sex. It is about selfishness. By cheap divorce, pre-marital sex, and homophilia – just for instance – this culture is sacrificing its children on the altar of self-fulfillment.
God is not a doctrine. He is real, and He is the Lord. He will direct the church’s response to this culture. Tell me, sir, how you think God or his people might minister to the temporal needs of society if He, or we, do not remember the children.
Thomas Alderman
Eugene, Oregon
I’ve been a fan of yours for years and still am; but you are as uncomprehending as anyone.
The church is already doing social good. In 2012-2014 I took a 2-year sabbatical in Jordan where I volunteered my services as an attorney for refugees seeking resettlement in the US. Several members of my congregation take two weeks a year out of their busy lives to travel to Haiti or Thailand to deliver free medical and dental services. Our city-wide church community has a vital and successful ministry to the homeless.
But we also have a prophetic ministry to the society around us. God forbid that we should cease to teach the truth to our generation on precisely the point where it is most in need.
The sexual revolution is not primarily about sex. It is about selfishness. By cheap divorce, pre-marital sex, and homophilia – just for instance – this culture is sacrificing its children on the altar of self-fulfillment.
God is not a doctrine. He is real, and He is the Lord. He will direct the church’s response to this culture. Tell me, sir, how you think God or his people might minister to the temporal needs of society if He, or we, do not remember the children.
Thomas Alderman
Eugene, Oregon
3
Thanks for your comments, we need to pray and follow Jesus.. He will continue to direct the lives of those that want to follow him and we should continue to stay faithful..
Three (or even four) cheers for your church's good works.
Now if you'd only consider that:
A) capitalism is directly at odds with Christianity's central teachings;
B) it's be nice if you'd dump some of the spiritual arrogance, and quit lecturing about how damned the rest of us are.
Now if you'd only consider that:
A) capitalism is directly at odds with Christianity's central teachings;
B) it's be nice if you'd dump some of the spiritual arrogance, and quit lecturing about how damned the rest of us are.
Dear Mr. Alderman, Mr. Brooks is attempting to speak with you. Congratulations to your church members for the good deeds you're doing in Haiti, for the homeless, and for refugees. Of course, those deeds are all rooted in the teachings of the first Christian. Your condemnation of gays (gotta love your term for recognition of the humanity of gay people as "homophilia!") needs a significant "come to Jesus" moment. Jesus did not condemn gay people or homosexuality, and your church's belief in homophobia is a significant contributor to the exodus from organized Christianity that Mr. Brooks addresses. The arrogance of self-righteousness speaks loud and clear when you say "prophetic ministry." That ministry was the preaching of the Pharisees whom Jesus opposed though he felt for their twisted hearts. Since when is self-righteousness not selfishness?
1
How about Christians "consider" stop relentlessly and obsessively trying to exert their power and control over the world? If it isn't one thing, it's another - climate change, sex, abortion, birth control, same-sex marriage, an end to health care. As an entity, if they were seeing a psychologist they'd likely be diagnosed with an extreme type of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and major control issues.
I care nothing about their reasons, their faith or their "morality". It's all hollow. The world has moved on; they're welcome to join us.
I care nothing about their reasons, their faith or their "morality". It's all hollow. The world has moved on; they're welcome to join us.
21
David,
All Christians are not conservative. There exists a not trivial community that interprets the Scriptures not through the lens of conservative social or political values. In decades past these 'main stream' churches have informed the best and brightest of our political and social leaders. e.g. Martin Luther King Jr. Please do not conflate Christianity with Social Conservative. It continues an unhelpful stereotype.
Nic out
All Christians are not conservative. There exists a not trivial community that interprets the Scriptures not through the lens of conservative social or political values. In decades past these 'main stream' churches have informed the best and brightest of our political and social leaders. e.g. Martin Luther King Jr. Please do not conflate Christianity with Social Conservative. It continues an unhelpful stereotype.
Nic out
16
How about ... if we reformulated the problem from there being a moral values / social structural vacuum to one in which the republican political party platform, representing its values system does extreme harm to the social, economic and political life of the great majority of Americans.
What made America strong in through the 1960s and into the 70s was not its morality, but rather the social and economic security and corresponding well-being that Americans enjoyed and made possible by the social and economic policies of democrats and some (very few) republicans ...
How about that, David
What made America strong in through the 1960s and into the 70s was not its morality, but rather the social and economic security and corresponding well-being that Americans enjoyed and made possible by the social and economic policies of democrats and some (very few) republicans ...
How about that, David
11
Catholics, at least, should listen to the Pope and join efforts to fight global warming and preserve and protect all life on earth. When we are all looking for air to breathe, or food to eat, or water to drink, or land to stand on, the questions of who gets to marry whom, or who gets to control whose reproductive system, will seem trivial indeed.
8
" They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love." Except for homosexuals , those who believe in the right to choose and others who don't subscribe to their faith. They may say they love these "misguided people" but they don't.
"They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely." True, churches often help those in need, but much wealth is spent building beautiful churches trying to get new converts, money better spent helping the poor and homeless. Christ wasn't about building elaborate buildings.
"I don’t expect social conservatives to change their positions on sex, and of course fights about the definition of marriage are meant as efforts to reweave society. But the sexual revolution will not be undone anytime soon." He implies the sexual revolution should be undone ,I guess. Religious obsession with things sexual is a problem in many religions. Look at Muslim suppression of women for example.
They are for right to life but only until born. Hence they vote for people who then pass laws consigning poor children to poverty and starvation because having been born they have become " takers and slackers" for wanting decent wages and decent housing and decent education and of course for wanting to live on "OUR" tax money.
"They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely." True, churches often help those in need, but much wealth is spent building beautiful churches trying to get new converts, money better spent helping the poor and homeless. Christ wasn't about building elaborate buildings.
"I don’t expect social conservatives to change their positions on sex, and of course fights about the definition of marriage are meant as efforts to reweave society. But the sexual revolution will not be undone anytime soon." He implies the sexual revolution should be undone ,I guess. Religious obsession with things sexual is a problem in many religions. Look at Muslim suppression of women for example.
They are for right to life but only until born. Hence they vote for people who then pass laws consigning poor children to poverty and starvation because having been born they have become " takers and slackers" for wanting decent wages and decent housing and decent education and of course for wanting to live on "OUR" tax money.
16
Same-sex marriage is not about sex. It is about marriage. It is about love. Love. The sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s is credited (or blamed) for society's greater acceptance of the homosexuals who were always a part of life, and who'd been shunned and mistreated. The church was not only complicit; it was (and remains with rare exception) a perpetrator. What freed us was not a sex party; it was AIDS. People from all walks of life got sick and died. Survivors who had been hiding in plain sight stepped forward to care for, to advocate for, to build structures and institutions as safety nets, and to plead to have their churches open their doors in desperate need for the prayers of all believers. Suddenly it mattered not who knew or who didn't know. It was about life and death. Society saw our courage, our strength, our genius and our limitless compassion in the face of a mortal enemy. Christians repeated the words of Jesus,"Come unto me, all who are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." The word "all" had no asterisks. We knew, and society knew that we needed no earthly permission to love as God surely loved us. It is time that these guardians of the faith open their hearts and arms as the surely the Christ has done for us. We forgive you, and love you.
14
Surely, we've learned more in the last 40 years than humanity has experienced in the last 2,000.
Our shift from two-parent to single-parent households has led to lower poverty rates, less income inequality, better schools and empty prisons.
And unity? Why, we've never been more unified as a nation.
We are surely entering the second Age of Enlightenment.
Our shift from two-parent to single-parent households has led to lower poverty rates, less income inequality, better schools and empty prisons.
And unity? Why, we've never been more unified as a nation.
We are surely entering the second Age of Enlightenment.
2
A culture war? Really?
The somewhat tortured logic here seems based on conflating Christianity with domestic politics, or worse on assigning some moral superiority to organized religion.
As to which political factions can lay claim to Christianity, I refer readers to President Obama's eloquent remarks in Charleston, SC last week. And I would submit that neither Democrats nor Republicans can plant their flag in sacred ground and then argue that their political opposition is trespassing when they tread upon the property. And if any religious sect believes they have a monopoly on righteous or moral behavior, they probably betray their own teachings on love and tolerance.
Too often politics reveal a huge dichotomy between the preaching and the deeds.
The families of the victims in South Carolina certainly set an example for us all in applying their church's teachings to a practical real world situation. Should anyone care what religious or political label is assigned to grace like that?
Perhaps "Culture war" is exactly the wrong metaphor.
For so many reasons.
The somewhat tortured logic here seems based on conflating Christianity with domestic politics, or worse on assigning some moral superiority to organized religion.
As to which political factions can lay claim to Christianity, I refer readers to President Obama's eloquent remarks in Charleston, SC last week. And I would submit that neither Democrats nor Republicans can plant their flag in sacred ground and then argue that their political opposition is trespassing when they tread upon the property. And if any religious sect believes they have a monopoly on righteous or moral behavior, they probably betray their own teachings on love and tolerance.
Too often politics reveal a huge dichotomy between the preaching and the deeds.
The families of the victims in South Carolina certainly set an example for us all in applying their church's teachings to a practical real world situation. Should anyone care what religious or political label is assigned to grace like that?
Perhaps "Culture war" is exactly the wrong metaphor.
For so many reasons.
9
Those who have made the greatest war on Christianity have been what Andrew Sullivan has called Christianists. Many have rejected scientific facts, their gay children and brothers and sisters, the politics of inclusion, and created churches that are more like country clubs than places of refuge. Many have, at the same time, valued physical safety over the safety of the soul, believing that the world is so dangerous they should even carry guns into the church itself. They can only "reweave society" when they understand that their faith is indeed "built on selfless love," and please do not confuse giving to the church--so it can be air-conditioned, have the best sound system and jumbo-trons, and create a top-notch entertainment environment--with charitable giving. Of course, there are wonderful, kind, loving people in the pews, but those who did not grow up in a church see it as the leaders of the Republican party portray it: without heart, without mercy, and totally divorced from the example of Christ. I believe there is more to it, but it is not the secular public who has created this image that this religion is more about what goes on in the bedroom than in the torture chamber, and that the Prince of Peace is really Rambo in a robe.
12
There's an article in the NYT today about how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is doing everything possible to make the world safe for drug dealers to sell tobacco.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/business/international/us-chamber-work...
(I see someone has already gotten the NYT to move this embarrassing-for-"free-marketers" article down the page and over a column where it won't so quickly catch readers' eyes.)
Maybe your army of good Christian soldiers can start your proposed Crusade by working on the morals ethics and behaviors of the so-called Capitalists who pedal murderous products.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/business/international/us-chamber-work...
(I see someone has already gotten the NYT to move this embarrassing-for-"free-marketers" article down the page and over a column where it won't so quickly catch readers' eyes.)
Maybe your army of good Christian soldiers can start your proposed Crusade by working on the morals ethics and behaviors of the so-called Capitalists who pedal murderous products.
14
I have a recurring problem when I read David Brooks' columns. I just don't recognize the dark world he describes in them.
8
Let me see if I properly understand:
We've abandoned all morals and are creating a society filled with the ills you Religious Conservatives warned us about.
We're still right and you're still wrong but please come in and clean up our mess, we're too busy planning the next Pride Parade.
We've abandoned all morals and are creating a society filled with the ills you Religious Conservatives warned us about.
We're still right and you're still wrong but please come in and clean up our mess, we're too busy planning the next Pride Parade.
3
It's only an "egregious act of judicial usurpation" if you disagree with the ruling.
6
"The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families."
Ever the missionaries bringing "The Word" to the "unwashed," eh, Mr. Brooks.
How about if you and your fellow "Enlightened" start learning to observe and understand how the world really works. Stop teaching humility, and start practicing it.
Your writing typically exhibits that you have little idea about how anything works. You still believe you have something to teach. It's sad, really.
Ever the missionaries bringing "The Word" to the "unwashed," eh, Mr. Brooks.
How about if you and your fellow "Enlightened" start learning to observe and understand how the world really works. Stop teaching humility, and start practicing it.
Your writing typically exhibits that you have little idea about how anything works. You still believe you have something to teach. It's sad, really.
5
'Social conservatives' seem to be constantly consumed by sex. It's all they talk about.
5
How could they not react to the rampant promiscuity of the 1970s "sexual revolution" on their TV screens? They were prescient, because just 25 years later adolescent girls were being inoculated against the HPV sex disease that might make them infertile, syphilis was going strong, and 625,000 men had died of AIDS. Gosh, even the Liberals began to call for self-restraint, tho a day late and a dollar short (they "evolved" with Hillary?)
It was not social conservatives who were blamed for AIDS ("the gay cancer") in 1982. Watch Larry Kramer on HBO now to get your answer, he's been telling the same tale, like Downtown's version of the Ancient Mariner, for decades now.
And who could not react to the industrialization of "terminating" 55 million - 1/6 of our entire population -- preborn babies? Feminism did what Malthus could only dream about.
"Moderation in all things." Words to live (longer) by.
It was not social conservatives who were blamed for AIDS ("the gay cancer") in 1982. Watch Larry Kramer on HBO now to get your answer, he's been telling the same tale, like Downtown's version of the Ancient Mariner, for decades now.
And who could not react to the industrialization of "terminating" 55 million - 1/6 of our entire population -- preborn babies? Feminism did what Malthus could only dream about.
"Moderation in all things." Words to live (longer) by.
2
The social conservatives cannot overcome the barriers that economic conservatives put in place. For example, you need $500,000 to open a McDonald's franchise, which will be profitable if you do it correctly. Assume that happens. Now what do you do - keep paying your workers minimum wage and contribute generously to the Ronald McDonald house, or raise your employee's wages, understanding the RMcD will get a smaller or no contribution? Charity does start at home. Conservatives of all types need to study the concepts of economic justice. Social conservatism without underlying economic justice won't work.
7
Social conservatism has never and will never lead to a successful society .
Morality has gone out the window. It's just no on anyone's radar screen anymore. This is tragic as it gives the radical right a platform. But the left ought to recognize that they have a responsibility too.
It seems to me that social conservatives have to take on our atomizing, you're on your own, creative destruction is great, disruption is great, form of capitalism head on if they want values that promote social cohesion. Instead they support as a form of freedom this alienating system. They need to at least think about this contradiction.
1
Says Mr. Brooks: "The more practical struggle is to repair a society rendered atomized, unforgiving and inhospitable."
Not gonna happen in a society that has for decades told everybody that it is a dog-eat-dog world and "you are on your own, so look after yourself." The "atomized" individuals have no time in this highly competitive and challenging economic environment to sit around and listen to the conservatives' new social and cultural agenda that Mr. Brooks prescribes.
Not gonna happen in a society that has for decades told everybody that it is a dog-eat-dog world and "you are on your own, so look after yourself." The "atomized" individuals have no time in this highly competitive and challenging economic environment to sit around and listen to the conservatives' new social and cultural agenda that Mr. Brooks prescribes.
2
People like Mr. Brooks and groups like the Republican Party that promote the fanciful notion that religious institutions can replace the federal government in promoting the Common Good are the problem.
Had FDR waited for churches to lead the way during the Great Depression, the US would never have recovered from it. If religious institutions seek greater influence with the American people, they need to embrace the same social and economic principles Roosevelt advanced that truly promoted the Common Good.
Had FDR waited for churches to lead the way during the Great Depression, the US would never have recovered from it. If religious institutions seek greater influence with the American people, they need to embrace the same social and economic principles Roosevelt advanced that truly promoted the Common Good.
6
With piety, across all human orders, there are sticks and carrots. And there always have been the same across all religions and "isms". I do not think this culture war or the next ones will be any different. This is against the grain, called "human nature".
2
So David, it seems that all we conservative people who have religious beliefs need to do is give over to the liberal left all our of our souls and teachings.
Not going to happen so get used to the struggle.
Not going to happen so get used to the struggle.
4
No, just mind your own business.
What do you mean? Helping people and focussing on real issues? that gives over your souls? You only have one teaching? no gay marriage?
The solution is so simple - strictly enforce seven of the ten commandments. This used to be known as the Laws of Adam. They still work.
1
I don't see Mr. Brooks' "social conservatives" doing anything in private that they're not doing in public. They're consistently self-centered, intolerant, mean-spirited and uncharitable, be it privately or publicly. Yes, our society is moving past them. No, they won't go down quietly as long as their efforts are fueled by the Koch brothers, Ted Cruz and many, many more. Wake up, Mr. Brooks, you're preaching to the deafened.
20
Am I missing something? You are lambasting and then accusing others of being, "intolerant, mean-spirited and uncharitable"? This is the problem with the left: self-righteousness that is used to justify hypocrisy. Look, many of the "social conservative" Christians are who they are because those who taught them the Bible did not fully grasp that, as the writer of 1 John says, "God is love." But they have the chance to learn and I suspect your ilk might not. As a great writer and persecuted homo-sexual once wrote, "We are all down in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars." That is what as a would-be-leader of Christians I would like to inspire.
Koch Brothers derangement alert. And I don't think you're looking very hard.
Sorry, but I can't square the experience of watching, for more than 30 years now, misguided, obstinate religious fanatics persistently trying to warp our civil laws to fit their superstitions and lust to control others, on the one hand, with "a faith built on selfless love" on the other.
That's the talk they talk, but they have walked all over the rest of us with a compassionless Scalian swagger for far too long. That they are now in disarrayed retreat is one more reason to celebrate the events of last week.
After all, didn't Jesus teach to pray privately and not make a show of it, let alone a radical, abusive political movement?
That's the talk they talk, but they have walked all over the rest of us with a compassionless Scalian swagger for far too long. That they are now in disarrayed retreat is one more reason to celebrate the events of last week.
After all, didn't Jesus teach to pray privately and not make a show of it, let alone a radical, abusive political movement?
23
Your vituperation is not as bad as some others, but you do an injustice: those "obstinate religious fanatics" were not trying to change civil laws, they were resisting change. Big difference. And if they stick with the heart of their faith, they will eventually arrive at being generous of spirit; I do not hold out that kind of hope for you given the tone you use.
We need to move away from this obsession with sex and the private behavior of adults to the question of what we can do to make sure that the earth and all its inhabitants survives in healthy mode.
Quickly.
Quickly.
21
I agree with the author that more people are turned off by the current pop christian thinking, but are still interested in charity, spirituality, and community. Too often the Christians we see are the Westboro Baptists, the Knights of Columbus, the Duggars. I think another aspect of this type of religion that turns people off is its all-or-nothing style. If the country doesn't follow a Christian doctrine, Christians seem to fear a complete downfall for their faith and their world. If atheists/humanists felt like this they would all be jumping off a cliff by now. I agree with the author that a more appropriate and modern role for the church should be supporting the poor, the lonely, providing infrastructure and community in places without resources.
88
Christianity in decline in this country? You could have fooled me. It showed itself to be gloriously alive and well, in Charleston, South Carolina, as people found common cause and were even able to forgive a killer who had committed truly unspeakable acts. Dylann Roof wanted to start a race war, but succeeded in doing the very opposite. In the horror of wanton tragedy people rediscovered a most fundamental truth, as stated by Paul the Apostle: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, or free man nor bondsman. All are one in Christ." A Christ who commands us to love one another, come what may. You could conclude that the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King must have been leading those who marched and held hands while they prayed, at least in spirit.
Christianity, at its inception, was that most radical of faiths - a recognition of human equality in God's eyes, and the need to stop judging others by their private lives. It's not about 'social issues', except for that most fundamental 'social issue' of all - the need to love and care for one another. It is the religion of Albert Schweitzer who reached out, not David Brooks who seeks retreat into a shell of his own making. And, because of that, it's probably the toughest row to hoe, anywhere.
Christianity, at its inception, was that most radical of faiths - a recognition of human equality in God's eyes, and the need to stop judging others by their private lives. It's not about 'social issues', except for that most fundamental 'social issue' of all - the need to love and care for one another. It is the religion of Albert Schweitzer who reached out, not David Brooks who seeks retreat into a shell of his own making. And, because of that, it's probably the toughest row to hoe, anywhere.
150
Brooks always disappoints me. He's such a smart man, but is so ignorant of what his people - social conservatives - truly are. Right now, social conservatives are the number one reason American society is 'atomized, unforgiving and inhospitable.' Their number one reason for being is to convince American to hate other American they dub socialist, godless, traitorous - even as they seem to have not even the most tenuous grasp of what these terms might mean. Expecting these people to repair the society they spend every word and action trying only to destroy - this is an idea straight from the furthest reaches of outer space.
24
I used to enjoy Brooks' columns, but now he tries so hard to make conservatives look good and liberals look bad that it seems he has lost touch with reality.
1
Mr. Brooks KEEPS getting it wrong. He implies - states, really - that the decline in traditional families is somehow caused by society's acceptance of gay marriage (I don't recall any other news this week related to families.) There's no evidence whatsoever to indicate that. He says that Christianity cannot survive by accepting newer social norms. I don't know where he gets this idea. I also don't know where he gets off stating that contraception is not embraced by Christians. It's a broad, messy brush he paints with. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
10
Mr. Brooks, there are many good Christians who quietly do the good work you speak of already. They are clearly inspired by Christ's words of love.
However, those engaged in the culture wars are full of hate. They profess a belief in Jesus, but their actions constantly reject his teachings.
However, those engaged in the culture wars are full of hate. They profess a belief in Jesus, but their actions constantly reject his teachings.
25
“We have to accept that we really are living in a culturally post-Christian nation. The fundamental norms Christians have long been able to depend on no longer exist.”
That line just makes me want to scream. We were NEVER culturally a christian nation. Not ever, except in current day delusional christrian minds.
And, yikes, wow, "norms Christians have long been able to depend on". Like what exactly? Their right to impose their religion on others? Their right to prevent others from having the right to marry?
None of this Brooks piece is defensible in the least, except in those delusional and dangerous minds. For them this will be a rationalization and a rallying cry, giving many another dose of anger likely to be vented on gay people. You will bear a good deal of responsibility when next that happens, Mr. Brooks.
That line just makes me want to scream. We were NEVER culturally a christian nation. Not ever, except in current day delusional christrian minds.
And, yikes, wow, "norms Christians have long been able to depend on". Like what exactly? Their right to impose their religion on others? Their right to prevent others from having the right to marry?
None of this Brooks piece is defensible in the least, except in those delusional and dangerous minds. For them this will be a rationalization and a rallying cry, giving many another dose of anger likely to be vented on gay people. You will bear a good deal of responsibility when next that happens, Mr. Brooks.
11
Please stop referring to all Christians as if they have the same ideas on scripture. There are many of us who disagree on extreme conservative views of society based on our understanding of scripture, especially of the New Testament and its significance. I correct my students who lump all Christians into one belief system. What denomination or sect are you referring to I ask. I ask the same of you Mr. Brooks.
17
The fundamental asymmetry of religious tolerance concerns me.
We are not allowed to call bigots "bigots", but they are free to write
"through the surrounding cultural darkness."
We can't just sit around and let their darkness stomp around like a scared child. But we can't talk to them as equals?
This is the kind of demanded asymmetry that is not fair for the new majority.
We are not allowed to call bigots "bigots", but they are free to write
"through the surrounding cultural darkness."
We can't just sit around and let their darkness stomp around like a scared child. But we can't talk to them as equals?
This is the kind of demanded asymmetry that is not fair for the new majority.
5
He forgets to mention the fairy tale old man in the sky nonsense, which, last I heard, was the foundation of all religions, except my personal favorite, FSM.
100 billion stars in the Milky Way, 100 billion galaxies, we are unique?
God knows everything, send his son down for thirty years but hasn't had a minute since to get back to us. God was on earth for thirty years and didn't bother to explain germ theory or scientific farming? Anybody who believes that nonsense is delusional.
100 billion stars in the Milky Way, 100 billion galaxies, we are unique?
God knows everything, send his son down for thirty years but hasn't had a minute since to get back to us. God was on earth for thirty years and didn't bother to explain germ theory or scientific farming? Anybody who believes that nonsense is delusional.
7
Amen. The basic misunderstanding of the religious conservatives is that morality is something you impose on yourself - not others - and religious dicta apply only to the community of faith - not the larger community.
But what is curious to me is that you are arguing that the religious conservatives should basically adopt the progressive social agenda of improving the lives of the least well off among us.
Next thing you will ask is that they will all of a sudden be supporters of big government? Well maybe. They were OK with "intrusive" government so long as that government was intruding to enforce their notions of morality.
After a week like the past one, it is nice to dream about what else could be. But forgive me for having serious doubts about the future you envision, as nice as it would be.
But what is curious to me is that you are arguing that the religious conservatives should basically adopt the progressive social agenda of improving the lives of the least well off among us.
Next thing you will ask is that they will all of a sudden be supporters of big government? Well maybe. They were OK with "intrusive" government so long as that government was intruding to enforce their notions of morality.
After a week like the past one, it is nice to dream about what else could be. But forgive me for having serious doubts about the future you envision, as nice as it would be.
9
And they don't impose it on themselves. They have gay sex and abortions etc, etc., and then use the get out of jail free card. "I have sinned." Then as soon as no one is looking, they do it again. They want to control the sexuality of others while doing whatever they please. They are consummate hypocrites, interested only in controlling others while doing as they please.
Hold the phone there--Jesus would work to improve the lives of the least well off among us, so don't call yourself a Christian if that is not something you venture to do in life.
1
Actually I believe the current 'hard right christian' came about more as a result of Nixon's 'southern strategy' than a mid-sixties revolt against more permissive sex.
It was never about 'selfless love' but instead it called up the anti-intellectualism of the Stevenson race labeling the 'others' as 'elitists', 'effete snobs', godless communists, and making secular humanist a term of derision.
It's easy to see what was done, first you dehumanize people, make them evil demons, then it's a short step to making them 'takers', 'welfare queens', spawns of Satan.
The easiest things to manipulate in all of us is pride, and hate, so much easier than brotherly love.
So much easier to tell people that they are the 'real Americans', the 'true' Christians,
It was never about 'selfless love' but instead it called up the anti-intellectualism of the Stevenson race labeling the 'others' as 'elitists', 'effete snobs', godless communists, and making secular humanist a term of derision.
It's easy to see what was done, first you dehumanize people, make them evil demons, then it's a short step to making them 'takers', 'welfare queens', spawns of Satan.
The easiest things to manipulate in all of us is pride, and hate, so much easier than brotherly love.
So much easier to tell people that they are the 'real Americans', the 'true' Christians,
12
Brooks' tone epitomizes the reasons young people are fleeing from institutional Christianity. For one thing, its most public face is not Christian; trying to force people to follow completely faith-based religious tenets, such as their view of when life begins and who should be eligible for marriage, is interference in the kingdom of this earth and specifically the U.S. separation of church and state. There are over 200 years' worth of writers, from the Enlightenment onward, who point out positive elements in Christian ethics and how separable these elements are from Christian theology. If Mr. Brooks wants to save Christianity, I suggest he focus on these parts rather on the intolerant aspects of organized religious theocracy--Christian, Muslim, or any other set of practices that try to bully others into compliance rather than promote love, forgiveness, and turning the other cheek.
6
The reason that society has turned away from so-called Christian values has been the culture war itself, the meanness and vitriolic rhetoric by those who claimed to be CHristian.
Regardless of the issue, if The Mean People are for it, I'm pretty much opposed; and I know many people who feel that way. Their obsession with sex makes it impossible to take them seriously.
And what happened to charity? I don't often agree with Brooks, but I'm with him on this. There is a lot of suffering in this nation and this world. They could spend their time easing the suffering of others, not hating and calling damnation down on them. They could be … well, Christ-like.
Regardless of the issue, if The Mean People are for it, I'm pretty much opposed; and I know many people who feel that way. Their obsession with sex makes it impossible to take them seriously.
And what happened to charity? I don't often agree with Brooks, but I'm with him on this. There is a lot of suffering in this nation and this world. They could spend their time easing the suffering of others, not hating and calling damnation down on them. They could be … well, Christ-like.
13
While we are dreaming the impossible dream, could I pretty please also have a pink unicorn? The day when social conservatives contribute to healing anything at all will be memorable indeed. Their idea of healing the rifts in society is to put pepper into the wounds, including their own.
With all due respect, this is a crazy notion. But I admire the optimism and the relentless cheerfulness of Mr. Brooks.
With all due respect, this is a crazy notion. But I admire the optimism and the relentless cheerfulness of Mr. Brooks.
5
Brooks seems to imply that the next culture war will be between secular society and social conservatives. After reading many of the comments, I have a feeling that the next culture war will be between progressive Christians and the social conservative "Christians" who have usurped their religion.
7
I'm sickened that Mr. Brooks, having savaged the essence of Christianity in his attack on the Pope's Encyclical, which was no more than a restatement of core ideas regarding the value of life and of the earth from the Old and New Testaments, Aquinas, Francis, John Paul II, Benedict and other texts and writers central to Christians, is now pushing his own version of "Christianity" forward. It's something to do with lower taxes.
I wish he would stop. I wish I could meet these cultural conservatives he speaks of who are so "selfless." Ye shall know them by their works. His market friendly attempt to take down Christianity's note so market-friendly core beliefs (remember the money changers in the Temple) would seem to bar him from ever using the name Christ in print indefinitely. Can he please desist? Has he no sense of decency?
I wish he would stop. I wish I could meet these cultural conservatives he speaks of who are so "selfless." Ye shall know them by their works. His market friendly attempt to take down Christianity's note so market-friendly core beliefs (remember the money changers in the Temple) would seem to bar him from ever using the name Christ in print indefinitely. Can he please desist? Has he no sense of decency?
8
There are already a few religious people doing what Mr. Brooks advises. Many of them are nuns, such as Sister Mary Scullion of Project Home in Philadelphia. I admire these people of faith, whose mission is to help the least of our brothers and sisters. They carry out their mission in every aspect of their daily lives. Unfortunately, most of the other religious folk are more interested in obsessing over people's sexual habits, and judging them accordingly. You must realize, Mr. Brooks - they don't wish to give up their sex obsession and superior attitude for real work in the trenches. Not gonna happen.
11
It's hard to believe that Brooks knows as little about Christianity as his text implies. There is of course no such thing as his "orthodox Christianity" and most Christian believers in this country do not reject the aspects of basic human decency that he finds so frightening.
I suspect the same argument can be extended to what he calls 'values'. Can there be any doubt that the fundamental values of fairness, respect, and understanding are more widespread, more broadly conceived, and more deeply rooted now than they were 50 or a 100 years ago?
The senescence of the cranky old order, with its elaborate self-delusions, is something to celebrate. Humane values have spread and triumphed without the priests, the shouters, the whole oppressive charade. Let's take that and run with it.
I suspect the same argument can be extended to what he calls 'values'. Can there be any doubt that the fundamental values of fairness, respect, and understanding are more widespread, more broadly conceived, and more deeply rooted now than they were 50 or a 100 years ago?
The senescence of the cranky old order, with its elaborate self-delusions, is something to celebrate. Humane values have spread and triumphed without the priests, the shouters, the whole oppressive charade. Let's take that and run with it.
3
"The more practical struggle is to repair a society rendered atomized, unforgiving and inhospitable. Social conservatives are well equipped to repair this fabric, and to serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace."
The sin of Sodom was being inhospitable to the stranger in their midst. I'd say the evangelical church today is committing the same sin, which is the most ironic thing about their "culture wars."
The sin of Sodom was being inhospitable to the stranger in their midst. I'd say the evangelical church today is committing the same sin, which is the most ironic thing about their "culture wars."
4
Years ago when I attended churches I went for the communal feeling and the songs, the movement and the peace I felt. After that I began to notice hypocrisy, fear and signs of retribution if certain 'forms' were not followed. I saw a disparity in the way folks acted about religion and church and how they conducted their own lives. I stopped attending and looked for the feelings I sought in other places.
It is little wonder to me that there is a decline as you say it. There is no war on Christianity or Christmas or Christians who practice. There is a victim mentality that is perpetuated by the folks on Fox and other Christian or evangelical groups. It is okay for your beliefs but not mine is a very clear message.
We all seek faith in what works for us. Following Christians who do not follow Christ's teachings or charity, forgiveness and love is not a good model to attract the minions to the faith. It repels if anything.
Fortunately there are a lot of good Christians who practice what they preach and they may be a beacon for those of us who have been disappointed and wandered off. Being Christian is not about forcing behaviors on people and integrating that into law. It is about living your life and walking the walk. When that changes perhaps the decline will reverse itself.
It is little wonder to me that there is a decline as you say it. There is no war on Christianity or Christmas or Christians who practice. There is a victim mentality that is perpetuated by the folks on Fox and other Christian or evangelical groups. It is okay for your beliefs but not mine is a very clear message.
We all seek faith in what works for us. Following Christians who do not follow Christ's teachings or charity, forgiveness and love is not a good model to attract the minions to the faith. It repels if anything.
Fortunately there are a lot of good Christians who practice what they preach and they may be a beacon for those of us who have been disappointed and wandered off. Being Christian is not about forcing behaviors on people and integrating that into law. It is about living your life and walking the walk. When that changes perhaps the decline will reverse itself.
6
Once again a thoughtful, non-polemical, engaging commentary from Mr. Brooks. Alas, too few on the right exhibit such thoughtful, considered reasoning or harken to such proposals. Predictably, because we are so polarized as a country and the two polarities can't stand those of us like Brooks (and I) who refuse to choose a "team", there will be snarling rejection here by the left, and some on the right.
Indeed Christianity which is far more diverse than fundamentalist American style bible literalists, has always engaged in charity and good works. A Times columnist who travels in Africa has reported on the clinics, the nurses and physicians, the builders of clean water systems and so forth. A pope issues an encyclical on the environment and the impact of climate on the poor, now followed up by a conference in Rome. A Baptist former president named Carter builds houses for the needy. College kids from mainstream non fundamentalist RC and mainline Protestant traditions go to Central America to serve instead of hedonistic beach vacations. The list goes on, even if the atheist crowd here rolls their eyes and compulsively finds fault.
Brooks is also correct in recognizing that fights over pelvic issues are counter-productive. Focus instead on the empty soulless lives lived by so many inviting the fundamentalists of either Islam or Christianity to seduce and fill in the gap. Fill in that gap with true loving humanitarian gospel values.
Indeed Christianity which is far more diverse than fundamentalist American style bible literalists, has always engaged in charity and good works. A Times columnist who travels in Africa has reported on the clinics, the nurses and physicians, the builders of clean water systems and so forth. A pope issues an encyclical on the environment and the impact of climate on the poor, now followed up by a conference in Rome. A Baptist former president named Carter builds houses for the needy. College kids from mainstream non fundamentalist RC and mainline Protestant traditions go to Central America to serve instead of hedonistic beach vacations. The list goes on, even if the atheist crowd here rolls their eyes and compulsively finds fault.
Brooks is also correct in recognizing that fights over pelvic issues are counter-productive. Focus instead on the empty soulless lives lived by so many inviting the fundamentalists of either Islam or Christianity to seduce and fill in the gap. Fill in that gap with true loving humanitarian gospel values.
2
"American culture is shifting away from orthodox Christian positions on homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce and a range of other social issues"
"Social issues? "These are exactly what should NOT be considered social issues--in the sense that government should be involved automatically in them. These are "private issues".
Society does need to be involved in certain aspects of these private issues, of course, such as someone being responsible for raising each child born; or enforcement of whatever legal contract two people have chosen to commit to as marriage. But why anyone would call these things "social issues", rather than focusing on real social issues like healthcare, wealth distribution, climate change, etc. only insiders like you can take for granted.
Religions fear losing their tax-exempt status? I'm sure they do, but they don't fear losing this tax break at my expense more than I resent their so unfairly having it.
"Social issues? "These are exactly what should NOT be considered social issues--in the sense that government should be involved automatically in them. These are "private issues".
Society does need to be involved in certain aspects of these private issues, of course, such as someone being responsible for raising each child born; or enforcement of whatever legal contract two people have chosen to commit to as marriage. But why anyone would call these things "social issues", rather than focusing on real social issues like healthcare, wealth distribution, climate change, etc. only insiders like you can take for granted.
Religions fear losing their tax-exempt status? I'm sure they do, but they don't fear losing this tax break at my expense more than I resent their so unfairly having it.
7
Brooks' last sentence: "Social conservatives are well equipped to repair this fabric, and to serve as messengers of love, dignity . . ."
Really? I see social conservatives decrying any and all acts of reaching out to help others. I see social conservatives (and what does that term mean, does anyone know?) rejecting efforts to raise wages, grow the economy, improve education, enact and enforce environmental laws and regulations, extend healthcare to all citizens of the U.S., and the list goes on.
What I see is social conservatives holding onto visions of a mythical golden age, when all things were right (pun intended), and people knew their respective places. Even Mr. Brooks, who considers himself "left" of the people he cites, falls into the strategy employed by conservatives, whatever adjective you wish to place in front, that of constructing the "us vs. them" worldview.
I have been asked why I voted for Obama, and usually for Democrats. My response is that 1964, every piece of legislation or executive action that materially benefited the poor and the middle class has come from the Democrats. The Lord knows they have their problems, but "social liberals" (I don't know what that means, either) have at least been productive in working for the country at large.
Really? I see social conservatives decrying any and all acts of reaching out to help others. I see social conservatives (and what does that term mean, does anyone know?) rejecting efforts to raise wages, grow the economy, improve education, enact and enforce environmental laws and regulations, extend healthcare to all citizens of the U.S., and the list goes on.
What I see is social conservatives holding onto visions of a mythical golden age, when all things were right (pun intended), and people knew their respective places. Even Mr. Brooks, who considers himself "left" of the people he cites, falls into the strategy employed by conservatives, whatever adjective you wish to place in front, that of constructing the "us vs. them" worldview.
I have been asked why I voted for Obama, and usually for Democrats. My response is that 1964, every piece of legislation or executive action that materially benefited the poor and the middle class has come from the Democrats. The Lord knows they have their problems, but "social liberals" (I don't know what that means, either) have at least been productive in working for the country at large.
9
Brooks' points about how Christians can better address social problems in society are well taken. However, I'm not sure I understand the usefulness (or faithfulness) of simply dropping the subject of sex. Mainstream Protestantism has taken this tack since the sexual revolution began, and it has relentlessly grown smaller to the point that it is now all but irrelevant. Meanwhile, Evangelicalism has grown much larger over the same period of time, once it stopped its long retreat from cultural and political involvement that started after the Scopes Trial in the 1920s and continued into the 1970s. So I think the solution for conservative Christians has to be less wholesale and more nuanced than Brooks suggests; they have to learn to talk about sexual issues in ways that are less obsessive, less tone-deaf, and less self-righteous--and with at least some sense of humor.
The issues related to human sexuality are as serious, relevant, and important as ever, and historic Christian faith has something very important to bring to a context where family life has been ravaged by the fallout of the sexual revolution. In large part, our culture is just not interested. But those of us who are Christians have also been lousy messengers.
The issues related to human sexuality are as serious, relevant, and important as ever, and historic Christian faith has something very important to bring to a context where family life has been ravaged by the fallout of the sexual revolution. In large part, our culture is just not interested. But those of us who are Christians have also been lousy messengers.
1
The Christianity of the social conservatives is all about membership in the club. The Duggars are a perfect example. When a member of the club commits a sin/transgression/crime all the rest of us are supposed to accept the idea that it will be dealt with in-house and, well, Jesus forgives so it's not anyone else's problem. But woe unto non-members who dare defy the rules of the membership. All of the sudden the world is going to hell in a hand basket because the rest of us refuse to allow the religionists to tell us how we have to live. They rant and rave that they are being oppressed because they cannot force us to live by their rules. Because if they get to make the rules then they get to be in charge.
No thanks.
No thanks.
6
"Christianity's gravest setbacks..." Mr. Brooks and many of the comments are confusing Christianity with the physical church and social conservatives. Christianity is Jesus Christ, and has no setbacks.
The so-called churches in our society may or may not follow Christ, and likewise may or may not be filled with Christians. As I drive the streets of DC and see the multi-colored flags welcoming all to attend, I can only shake my head and wonder what of the Bible is being taught inside, if anything. But I am not jumping up and down and trying to change the world. I practice the serenity prayer. Christians should and do make the world a better place in their immediate family and community, but there are no delusions, for the world cannot be saved.
However, I am not disheartened at this, Christ is real and will establish His kingdom. There are no setbacks and all will happen according to His plan and purpose, and in His time.
The so-called churches in our society may or may not follow Christ, and likewise may or may not be filled with Christians. As I drive the streets of DC and see the multi-colored flags welcoming all to attend, I can only shake my head and wonder what of the Bible is being taught inside, if anything. But I am not jumping up and down and trying to change the world. I practice the serenity prayer. Christians should and do make the world a better place in their immediate family and community, but there are no delusions, for the world cannot be saved.
However, I am not disheartened at this, Christ is real and will establish His kingdom. There are no setbacks and all will happen according to His plan and purpose, and in His time.
3
"As I drive the streets of DC and see the multi-colored flags welcoming all to attend, I can only shake my head and wonder what of the Bible is being taught inside, if anything."
With the exception of throwing the money changers out of the temple, when did Jesus ever fail to welcome all who wished to hear his good news? This comment is a great illustration of the religious right's consistent failure to promote the central message of Christianity, which is "love your neighbor", in favor of cherry-picking the old testament to buttress their contempt for those whose lives threaten them.
With the exception of throwing the money changers out of the temple, when did Jesus ever fail to welcome all who wished to hear his good news? This comment is a great illustration of the religious right's consistent failure to promote the central message of Christianity, which is "love your neighbor", in favor of cherry-picking the old testament to buttress their contempt for those whose lives threaten them.
2
The state should never have been involved with marriage, which is a religious ritual meant to offer sacred benefits, and should, instead, only offer civil partnerships (to straights, gays, or anyone) which offer all the normal secular (i.e. financial) benefits of marriage. The two should not be mixed. This is the core of the problem. All of the Christian right's problems stem from their attempts to enforce Christian beliefs legally, and their refusal to see that theocracy is a heresy which reliably leads to religious hatred, which is why Jesus preached endlessly against it.
29
In France, one must be married at the equivalent of city hall in order for their marriage to be valid. Then then may get married in a church if they choose.
Marriage is a civil construct because so many laws and benefits relate to having a spouse. The ability to visit a relative in the ICU, leaving property in a will, etc. etc.
Marriage is a civil construct because so many laws and benefits relate to having a spouse. The ability to visit a relative in the ICU, leaving property in a will, etc. etc.
11
Well said! The "original sin" in this matter was in putting a major breach into the separation of church and state. The state decided to treat married people differently than single people, notwithstanding the equal treatment under the law provisions in the Constitution. It gave religious authorities the power to confer (or not confer) those benefits on individuals.
The state alone should have the power, by democratic processes, to confer secular benefits of penalties. The religious folks alone should have the untouched right to conduct their ceremonies and invoke their gods/prophets/spirits to do whatever mystical thing they deem necessary - and that should not include changing someone's status vis-a-vis the state's laws.
The state alone should have the power, by democratic processes, to confer secular benefits of penalties. The religious folks alone should have the untouched right to conduct their ceremonies and invoke their gods/prophets/spirits to do whatever mystical thing they deem necessary - and that should not include changing someone's status vis-a-vis the state's laws.
2
This idea may be true, but only until you find you need to be divorced: then marriage is a contract situation mainly involving money and possibly kids. It has next to nothing to do with religion when it ends. Plus, they don't have divorce cakes.
David, are these social conservatives the people who have been trying to undo the ACA? Who care very little for the (now formerly) uninsured? Or whether women can get safe abortions? Selfless love? I don't think so.
50
Penny... please don't put abortion in the same league with the ACA. To many of us, abortion, except when the mother's life is in danger, is murder - purely and simply. Love for the unborn is certainly selfless as is the ACA. I am not a member of any religion, but I am a spiritual Christian, if you understand the difference.
Let's not conflate Christianity with fundamentalism, though the loud minority is why so many are turned off about the whole business. I like your idea of following the pope's lead and getting back to the focus on helping others at the heart of all great religions.
13
It seems that what Mr. Brooks is asking a certain kind of Christian to do is to actually put into practice the teachings of Jesus. This article just skims over the real issue. A set of dogmatic, intolerant beliefs separated from self-awareness and compassion are masquerading as religion based on the teachings of a being who taught love and compassion as supreme values. The most effective charitable work comes from a charitable heart. The "social conservatives" need a change of heart, not of strategy.
34
"[Social conservatives] are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse." Well, I would be happy to see them fully support the ultimate community institution: our public schools, which have shamefully been under attack by exactly this group for decades.
36
My family was Catholic in the fashion of the religious left - the love of God for all living things was tantamount, and being a member of the church did not mean that you left your questions and disagreements with dogma at the door. I loved the church, and as a very young girl, was fervently interested in social justice. I am 52, and remain dedicated to the sacredness of all living things, to social justice, and to continued searching for the truth - but I am no longer a Christian. Its been many years since I've tried to fit my dearly held principles into the ugly and too-small suit that Christianity has become.
22
It seems to me that you are still a christian. A christian is a follower of christ, not of any particular church. That "too small suit" is only small if we let it be small. There is not alot I agree with in the New York times these days, but this article is one, as a follower of christ, that I whole heartedly endorse.
1
I agree that the "sexual revolution" is here to stay, and of course socially conservative Christians deeply regret that. However, I disagree that this is something that is happening "to" them. On the contrary, I think it happened because of them. There was premarital sex, homosexual sex, transgender identity, infidelity, abortion, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce, domestic abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, pedophilia, etc., before hippies, before Roe v. Wade, before Obergefell. The social upheaval in the 60s forced these things out in the open, so that those who were committing no sin were not judged, and those who were victims where not shamed. Prior to that the socially conservative Christians tried to pretend it was not happening, despite that it was happening all around them and they knew it. I don't respect their continued fight to go back to that time any more than I respect the fight waged in the Middle East to return to fundamentalism. What I don't understand is how anyone in this country doesn't see that it is the exact same issue.
27
So who shall we worship?
Ourselves or the State?
Ourselves or the State?
Why is it so important to worship anything? I might argue that it's even harmful to willingly put yourself in such a groveling and subservient position. What's wrong with a non-worshipful and healthy respect for our planet and our fellow man?
Whoever you want, just don't push it on others.
Worship whatever gods you want, but obey civil laws.
People have always had sex, as much as they could get, way before they were "people". Its not a culture war, it is the truth. However there is zero reason to ruin the planet becuase we resporduce with such gusto and so so successfully - science has given us birth control. When most of your children (along with teir mothers) died around childbirth) there was some vague imperative to forth and multiply but not now. Women has alot to give and should have the right to choose where that contribution is made. oh and CHristianaity is not the only holy place on the black.
4
In fact, non-Christians and Christians who are not part of the social conservative movement have been working with the underprivileged for years. The social conservatives Brooks mentioned are not motivated by love but by judgment, exclusion, and self-righteousness. If they want to retreat from society and huddle in their communities, the rest of the country will not miss them.
23
When the ebola “epidemic in America!!” occurred last fall, the spotlight was on a Christian medical mission.
Meanwhile the people who LIVE in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone were the ones who risked their lives every day caring for those in the villages struck down by the ebola virus...and some died caring for them. Sure! Time Magazine made them “Person of the Year” but it was the Christian missionary doctor who got all the media requests and spotlight.
Those of us in Doctors without Borders just continued working and discovering that full rubber suits, hoods, duct tape and buckets of bleach stopped the spread of this disease while American hospitals were woefully unprepared.
The nurse who was fried by Governor Chris Christie and the Maine governor, the man who walked around NYC with a mild fever and was seen as Typhoid Mary, a leper, a pariah...those two hadn’t been on a CHRISTIAN medical mission. You think that was by accident? All hail the Christian doctors and assistants and blast those NOT with a Christian group!
Then the DAY after the midterm elections there was absolutely NO coverage of ebola again! Fox News (What an oxymoron!) stopped with “Breaking News and Alert. Alert, Alert” banners across their screens.
But there’s a war on Christmas and Christians. Christian exceptionalism is the thread through every story on Fox news.
Meanwhile the people who LIVE in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone were the ones who risked their lives every day caring for those in the villages struck down by the ebola virus...and some died caring for them. Sure! Time Magazine made them “Person of the Year” but it was the Christian missionary doctor who got all the media requests and spotlight.
Those of us in Doctors without Borders just continued working and discovering that full rubber suits, hoods, duct tape and buckets of bleach stopped the spread of this disease while American hospitals were woefully unprepared.
The nurse who was fried by Governor Chris Christie and the Maine governor, the man who walked around NYC with a mild fever and was seen as Typhoid Mary, a leper, a pariah...those two hadn’t been on a CHRISTIAN medical mission. You think that was by accident? All hail the Christian doctors and assistants and blast those NOT with a Christian group!
Then the DAY after the midterm elections there was absolutely NO coverage of ebola again! Fox News (What an oxymoron!) stopped with “Breaking News and Alert. Alert, Alert” banners across their screens.
But there’s a war on Christmas and Christians. Christian exceptionalism is the thread through every story on Fox news.
Yeah, that will really help evangelicals and other christians you intend to describe here, when the vast majority of them think people in need are beggars and leeches, who defraud taxpayers in receiving their "government handouts" and are part of the grand "food stamp" culture. I can see all these "christians" lining up to help serve and support the people they regularly vilify and degrade. Great thinking as usual, Mr. Brooks!
19
Ugh. Social conservatives who will fight to the death someone else's right to love and marry are not the ones to lift anyone else's spiritual boat.
26
There is an element of moral prsumptiveness if not elitism, in suggesting that social conservatives might go into neighborhoods or communities, 'underprivileged areas' to help 'nuture stable families.' Surely one is influenced by family, teachers, religious elements from within the community who alone may teach by their example. Doing good for others comes by the example of our own lives, not by exporting missionaries, however well meaning. Not Toynbee Hall, but better, the gathering of two or three living in the community.
7
Ah yes! Bring back Noblesse Oblige! That worked so well..eh?
1
I have yet to see one single same sex couple ever disparage or disrespect in any way shape or form the union of two different sex people. I swear I don't understand the fear and loathing that flows the other way. Not one single gay person has probably ever proposed marriage to a heterosexual person in the history of mankind. Yet hetero people act like they are being assaulted and recruited on a daily basis. Get over it my straight brothers and sisters. You have your marriage and they have theirs. That's it.
25
Doug. “Not one single gay person has probably ever proposed marriage to a heterosexual person in the history of mankind.”
MANY gay men and women have proposed marriage to heterosexuals...and married! They had children and faked their way through life. It took incredible strength to divorce and find love with their own like-thinking souls.
There is a difference between “assaulting and recruiting” and finding an opposite sex person who will allow you to carry on the masquerade of “appearing normal.”
I am so thankful at the age of 66 that friends, family, and acquaintances no longer have to hide who they really are. That “normal” means absolutely nothing. That people can want and GET what the heart truly wants!
MANY gay men and women have proposed marriage to heterosexuals...and married! They had children and faked their way through life. It took incredible strength to divorce and find love with their own like-thinking souls.
There is a difference between “assaulting and recruiting” and finding an opposite sex person who will allow you to carry on the masquerade of “appearing normal.”
I am so thankful at the age of 66 that friends, family, and acquaintances no longer have to hide who they really are. That “normal” means absolutely nothing. That people can want and GET what the heart truly wants!
1
"They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely."
They tithe to their churches who use a large portion of that on political spending and campaigning. When it comes to money, Christianity in America has become more about personal prosperity than giving. Joel Osteen and his people like him get rich from and defend this "prosperity gospel" stuff on a daily basis, while milking their congregations for every dollar they have.
They tithe to their churches who use a large portion of that on political spending and campaigning. When it comes to money, Christianity in America has become more about personal prosperity than giving. Joel Osteen and his people like him get rich from and defend this "prosperity gospel" stuff on a daily basis, while milking their congregations for every dollar they have.
10
I lived in Utah for 20 years. Full disclaimer I am NOT LDS (Mormon).
Mitt and the rest of his fellow Mormons tithe 10% BEFORE taxes to The Church.
Many estimate that around 70% of the university’s operating costs are paid for by tithing money. Members of the church can attend BYU at a low cost.
It’s a private university but charging more for non-Mormons seemed to be just plain wrong to the rest of Utah’s students.
Oh yeah--tax exempt status. If they are tax exempt they need to charge the SAME tuition to all students.
This tax exempt status needs to stop. The LDS Church makes a LOT of money. The multibillion-dollar Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave just 0.7 percent of its annual income to charity between 1985–2008.
Less than 1% of its wealth went to charity! Wow!
Mitt and the rest of his fellow Mormons tithe 10% BEFORE taxes to The Church.
Many estimate that around 70% of the university’s operating costs are paid for by tithing money. Members of the church can attend BYU at a low cost.
It’s a private university but charging more for non-Mormons seemed to be just plain wrong to the rest of Utah’s students.
Oh yeah--tax exempt status. If they are tax exempt they need to charge the SAME tuition to all students.
This tax exempt status needs to stop. The LDS Church makes a LOT of money. The multibillion-dollar Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave just 0.7 percent of its annual income to charity between 1985–2008.
Less than 1% of its wealth went to charity! Wow!
2
Right on, David! The example of Jesus is absent of sexual condemnation, and filled with tangible actions of mercy for those on the margins and the bottom of society. If we as Christians could leave condemnation alone and focus on loving action, we might be admired, instead of reviled.
9
For shame, Mr. Brooks.
Christ the Reformer would have stood for the rights of the gay community and not with the 'conservative Christians' on this one. This hatred for homosexuals comes from a misreading of the Old Testament, and the limitations of the sexuality of the women remains in line with the Old Testament - which Christ was not in favor of. Christ counted Mary Magdalene as his friend, he asked his followers to do for the least of their brothers, the Christianity of 'The Church' is not what Christ preached.
The limits on 'others' based on 'my beliefs' which most social conservatives want is nothing more than a child's tantrum of the loss of social control that these communities are mourning.
It's a better world when more people are truly equal, and that is the community that Christ asked his followers to work towards.
Christ the Reformer would have stood for the rights of the gay community and not with the 'conservative Christians' on this one. This hatred for homosexuals comes from a misreading of the Old Testament, and the limitations of the sexuality of the women remains in line with the Old Testament - which Christ was not in favor of. Christ counted Mary Magdalene as his friend, he asked his followers to do for the least of their brothers, the Christianity of 'The Church' is not what Christ preached.
The limits on 'others' based on 'my beliefs' which most social conservatives want is nothing more than a child's tantrum of the loss of social control that these communities are mourning.
It's a better world when more people are truly equal, and that is the community that Christ asked his followers to work towards.
13
"Social conservatives could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love. "
I imagine I'm roughly the 1226th person to point this out, but no, that simply is not true.
Christianity is a faith built on selfless love, and the best one-word description of Christianity is "charitable". But social conservativism is not even remotely about "selfless love" or "charity", and Mr. Brooks must certainly already know that.
I imagine I'm roughly the 1226th person to point this out, but no, that simply is not true.
Christianity is a faith built on selfless love, and the best one-word description of Christianity is "charitable". But social conservativism is not even remotely about "selfless love" or "charity", and Mr. Brooks must certainly already know that.
31
Wow...this is one mouthful. Brooks is not left of anyone. To even tacitly suggest that social conservatives are morally superior in terms of their givebacks to society is the very hypocritical and typical judgmental attitude that makes them morally inferior. I should not even have to mention the fact that they are on the wrong side of most environmental issues, science, and matters of social inclusion. How is society served by these folks?
17
A system of belief built around a lest-ye-burn-in-hell ideology is abusive, plain and simple. Christ-like charitable acts aside, in the long term, Christianity helps no one -- not even the Christians themselves, many of whom, like my devout brother, seem absolutely miserable these days.
Besides, coming at anything in terms of a "war" cultural or otherwise signifies that someone is going to lose said war. How would that make anything better?
Besides, coming at anything in terms of a "war" cultural or otherwise signifies that someone is going to lose said war. How would that make anything better?
14
How about if they start by not trying to make others social pariah's?
15
I share Brooks's general approach here, but I agree with commenters that it does conflate Christianity with conservatism in a confusing way and that it also fails to face up to a couple of real issues. For conservatives--or for any who favor a restrained and Constitutionally-oriented Court--the Court's taking on the role of Supreme Legislature has to be a little troubling. It's not the content of the decision that troubles me but rather the grounds and the reasoning, which seem just incontrovertibly to violate even a liberal conception of restraint. And this has been a growing tendency in a thread of decisions. This judicial creativity can lead to for good or ill, but it does pre-empt the role of legislation, which is the heart of democracy.
The second issue has to do with preserving religious freedom and preventing the legal and social persecution of those who express dissenting opinions on marriage and family issues. Given Kennedy's use of "animus" in a previous decision, and the arguments of analogy made with gay marriage rights and the civil rights of African Americans, the stage is set for this kind of persecution and loss of liberty. We have already seen the beginnings of it.
So although I believe that religious thinkers have to re-think their traditions in light of historical and scientific-technological changes--sex and reproduction have been de-linked--I also believe that religious liberty is in danger and needs thoughtful defenders.
The second issue has to do with preserving religious freedom and preventing the legal and social persecution of those who express dissenting opinions on marriage and family issues. Given Kennedy's use of "animus" in a previous decision, and the arguments of analogy made with gay marriage rights and the civil rights of African Americans, the stage is set for this kind of persecution and loss of liberty. We have already seen the beginnings of it.
So although I believe that religious thinkers have to re-think their traditions in light of historical and scientific-technological changes--sex and reproduction have been de-linked--I also believe that religious liberty is in danger and needs thoughtful defenders.
What threatens religious liberty? What religious group has been told that it cannot worship as it chooses? What religious group has been told that it must admit to its membership people who do not believe in its principles? None that I know of.
What members of religious groups are complaining about is not that anyone tells them how to worship, but that they must obey the same rules as everyone else when operating a business. They can't refuse to serve customers who don't hold with their beliefs, nor can they refuse to provide services that everyone operating such a business is required by law to provide, nor can they fire an employee simply because the employee has different religious beliefs. Their solution is simple. If the law requires everyone operating a certain business to do things that might violate particular beliefs, then those who hold those beliefs should not operate that kind of business.
What members of religious groups are complaining about is not that anyone tells them how to worship, but that they must obey the same rules as everyone else when operating a business. They can't refuse to serve customers who don't hold with their beliefs, nor can they refuse to provide services that everyone operating such a business is required by law to provide, nor can they fire an employee simply because the employee has different religious beliefs. Their solution is simple. If the law requires everyone operating a certain business to do things that might violate particular beliefs, then those who hold those beliefs should not operate that kind of business.
Let's be clear: There is no "scriptural teaching on gay marriage." There is only scriptural interpretations -- competing ones, at that -- regarding homosexual behavior and marriage. Scripture says nothing about sexual orientation or same-sex marriage. Christians say plenty, on many sides of the issue. There are Christian positions opposing same-sex marriage, and Christian positions supporting it. Let Rod Dreher crawl into a shell if he wants to (and good riddance). I will continue to worship and practice as an openly gay Christian.
8
I don't think Christianity has anything to do with being a conservative or a liberal. It's trying to follow in Christ's footsteps, demonstrating love for one another through compassion and personal service. Jesus was not a politician. If he were here, he would be helping the poor and the sick, and including those who feel outcast.
Social conservatives believe they have morality on their side, but they often do not. Is it right to deny that climate change is real and potentially catastrophic even when the scientific evidence is overwhelming? Is it right to push against family planning options while at the same time pushing for reduced government budgets that partially would help neglected and abused foster kids? Is it right to judge others who have a different sexual orientation?
Please don't confuse the ideals of this uninformed minority with Christianity.
Social conservatives believe they have morality on their side, but they often do not. Is it right to deny that climate change is real and potentially catastrophic even when the scientific evidence is overwhelming? Is it right to push against family planning options while at the same time pushing for reduced government budgets that partially would help neglected and abused foster kids? Is it right to judge others who have a different sexual orientation?
Please don't confuse the ideals of this uninformed minority with Christianity.
11
The are many reasons that people are leaving Christianity: sexual abuse of minors, treating women as second-class citizens, backwards 19th century thinking on reproductive rights and birth control and an irrational hatred of homosexuals. Christians would be better served to look within and work on making themselves better persons (as we all should) rather than telling everyone else how to live their lives. We would all be better for it if they did.
11
"Social conservatives could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love. They can serve as examples of commitment. They are equipped with a vocabulary to distinguish right from wrong, what dignifies and what demeans. They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely.”
Equipped with a vocabulary to distinguish right from wrong?
When your ENTIRE philosophy of life is to quote from writings found on papyrus, the dead sea scrolls....and excludes all other writers, philosophers, social scientists, evolution, astrophysics, and every proved theory of scientific enquiry over the last 2,000 years you have NO RIGHT to tell people how to live!
If your vocabulary includes such terms as abominations, hell fire and brimstone--PLEASE isolate yourself in private gated communities and leave the rest of us ALONE!
Equipped with a vocabulary to distinguish right from wrong?
When your ENTIRE philosophy of life is to quote from writings found on papyrus, the dead sea scrolls....and excludes all other writers, philosophers, social scientists, evolution, astrophysics, and every proved theory of scientific enquiry over the last 2,000 years you have NO RIGHT to tell people how to live!
If your vocabulary includes such terms as abominations, hell fire and brimstone--PLEASE isolate yourself in private gated communities and leave the rest of us ALONE!
13
I think the response of the members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church to the recent shooting shows where the strength of American church really is. It's about people taking take of people. THAT'S Christina morality. It's not about raising a stink about who can have sex with who.
19
Sadly, black churches are among the most notorious for demeaning the LGBT community. Notice I wrote churches, not people.
Dear Mr. Brooks:
When average, middle and working class armies of Americans have consistently losing (over the decades, say starting with election of Reagan) economic foundation of a steady life and standard of living, vulnerability to A"instant gratification" vices, from "sex sells" movie and TV production to all kinds of substance abuse is given a huge room to fill.
But it is - supposedly God-given, even sacred - right of capital owners and their servants, to max out profits and obscene concentration of wealth, leaving hollowed-out urban and metropolitan areas from where untold millions of jobs were outsourced in exchange for a chance to buy extra made-in-China junk in Walmart from continuously and not only inflation-adjusted shrinking or no income.
If Koch bros and the top 1% or 0.1% are truly practicing Christian principles and Christian charity is better than government-taxpayer financed social net, we should not have these massive problems and whole-out deterioration of family and community.
So, with regrets, your wannabe artful twisting of argument is, yet again, innefective.
When average, middle and working class armies of Americans have consistently losing (over the decades, say starting with election of Reagan) economic foundation of a steady life and standard of living, vulnerability to A"instant gratification" vices, from "sex sells" movie and TV production to all kinds of substance abuse is given a huge room to fill.
But it is - supposedly God-given, even sacred - right of capital owners and their servants, to max out profits and obscene concentration of wealth, leaving hollowed-out urban and metropolitan areas from where untold millions of jobs were outsourced in exchange for a chance to buy extra made-in-China junk in Walmart from continuously and not only inflation-adjusted shrinking or no income.
If Koch bros and the top 1% or 0.1% are truly practicing Christian principles and Christian charity is better than government-taxpayer financed social net, we should not have these massive problems and whole-out deterioration of family and community.
So, with regrets, your wannabe artful twisting of argument is, yet again, innefective.
14
I stand with you, Nkwame. Well said.
1
Conservative Christians and their social onservative brethern will never abandon their "obessesion with sex", for one simple reason: power. If you control the sex lives of society, you control that society. Once you have that power, it is never surrendered without a fight.
10
The key idea here is "orthodoxy" or "evangelical" - not all Christians adhere to these views. In fact, many see the Gospels as a continuing expansion of inclusion. Perhaps we need to reread these in a different light and not cling to specific passages that are known to be inherently contradictory, but read the 'big' message of compassion.
9
"They fear they will soon be treated as social pariahs, the moral equivalent of segregationists because of their adherence to scriptural teaching on gay marriage."
Christians are not afraid of these things at all. Jesus and His disciples are models for us in standing up for the right.
Christians are not afraid of these things at all. Jesus and His disciples are models for us in standing up for the right.
2
It was "confessed" by Karl Rove that it was his political strategy to influence Christians into accepting the hard right mantel of tough love for the poor, the sick, the old, the homelessness and, by embracing Grover Norquist's battle against paying taxes to, as the Reagan-era demanded, "starve the beast."
It is a wonder how those of the Christian faith were convinced to forego the teachings of Jesus to embrace the rich (a.k.a. the money changers). Thrice-failed trickle-down, supply-side economic theories adopted by the conservative Christian faithful have decimated public school systems across the country with their slash-and-burn tax cuts for the wealthy. What happened to the compassion and empathy that Jesus taught more than 2,000 years ago, the very foundations of what became Christianity, in all its iterations?
I have received some emails from friends living in their far-right Evangelical world telling me that their faith is being assaulted by the Obama administration. It is a puzzlement that they can't understand that the numbers within their faith are dwindling because of problems within, not from outside, their faith. Religious conservatives within Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are failing to understand the real world around them.
This is not about defying Nature. Nature is always evolving per se. However, Nature is also revealing more about itself all the time. Faith is what it is: Faith.
It is a wonder how those of the Christian faith were convinced to forego the teachings of Jesus to embrace the rich (a.k.a. the money changers). Thrice-failed trickle-down, supply-side economic theories adopted by the conservative Christian faithful have decimated public school systems across the country with their slash-and-burn tax cuts for the wealthy. What happened to the compassion and empathy that Jesus taught more than 2,000 years ago, the very foundations of what became Christianity, in all its iterations?
I have received some emails from friends living in their far-right Evangelical world telling me that their faith is being assaulted by the Obama administration. It is a puzzlement that they can't understand that the numbers within their faith are dwindling because of problems within, not from outside, their faith. Religious conservatives within Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are failing to understand the real world around them.
This is not about defying Nature. Nature is always evolving per se. However, Nature is also revealing more about itself all the time. Faith is what it is: Faith.
24
You are 100% correct. I have left the Church partially because of the Church's position against gay marriage. My Daughter is gay. I can have no truck with those who would dehumanize or marginalize her. They will continue to lose good people till they have nothing but intolerant bullies in their pews.
1
Since you elected to make this Christian-centric to the exclusion of all other faiths, let's go there.
In Matthew and Mark, there are very simple directives of how to live in a way that reflects the teachings and the compassion of Christ.
In Mark 12:
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
**NO commandments greater.**
Matthew 25:31-45
The Son of Man comes in all his glory and divides people into two groups. Then the King blesses those in one group about whom he says: "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.... Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."
**He curses all the rest.**
Where in this scripture that lays out what should be the priorities of Christians is any mention of “homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce and a range of other social issues?”
Maybe we are living in a culturally post-Christian nation, not because of the reasons you gave, but because some have forgotten that "the greatest of these is love."
In Matthew and Mark, there are very simple directives of how to live in a way that reflects the teachings and the compassion of Christ.
In Mark 12:
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
**NO commandments greater.**
Matthew 25:31-45
The Son of Man comes in all his glory and divides people into two groups. Then the King blesses those in one group about whom he says: "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.... Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."
**He curses all the rest.**
Where in this scripture that lays out what should be the priorities of Christians is any mention of “homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce and a range of other social issues?”
Maybe we are living in a culturally post-Christian nation, not because of the reasons you gave, but because some have forgotten that "the greatest of these is love."
16
I'd rather be helped by a person rooted in the bone and sinew of life; some one real and grounded.
This fluffy do-goody stuff reeks of, well, do-goodiness. It's better than nothing, I suppose, if you're hungry.
I'd rather be helped by someone that sees me as their equal despite my problems.
This fluffy do-goody stuff reeks of, well, do-goodiness. It's better than nothing, I suppose, if you're hungry.
I'd rather be helped by someone that sees me as their equal despite my problems.
12
Thurly, your last sentence is a powerful one. It makes me realize that I would prefer to see someone I help as an equal rather than as somehow inferior. There, but for the grace of God, go I.
1
If ever there were a driving force behind the abandonment of "Christianity" in this country, it's hypocrisy. Long before the legality of gay marriage, we had quite obviously stopped pretending that lessons on fidelity and the murder of others was canon, at least in practice. Believe it or not, that hypocrisy is particularly striking in the internet age, and so you reap what you sew.
3
Thoughts:
Ask the "average" evangelical who was Albert Schweitzer or Dorothy Day and I would wager that he/she would not have a clue. However, ask about Falwell, Roberts, the Grahams and I wager there would be close to 100% name recognition, and approval.
The most prominent "Founding Fathers" were deists, not practicing Christians.
When Christianity truly, spiritually and openly adheres to and honors The Beatitudes, then, and only then, will I pay attention to Christian thought on anything.
"Most Christian commentary has opted for another strategy: fight on."
All proselytizing religions are intolerant and, more often than not, take their intolerance to an extreme level.
Ask the "average" evangelical who was Albert Schweitzer or Dorothy Day and I would wager that he/she would not have a clue. However, ask about Falwell, Roberts, the Grahams and I wager there would be close to 100% name recognition, and approval.
The most prominent "Founding Fathers" were deists, not practicing Christians.
When Christianity truly, spiritually and openly adheres to and honors The Beatitudes, then, and only then, will I pay attention to Christian thought on anything.
"Most Christian commentary has opted for another strategy: fight on."
All proselytizing religions are intolerant and, more often than not, take their intolerance to an extreme level.
23
I totally agree with David Brooks here. Let's also not forget that Christ lived in an even more imperfect, violent and divided place and time. He openly engaged all comers, and never promoted the idea that Christians should segregate themselves to create some insular society. That approach won't work today either. I too don't agree with Social Conservatives or the obsession over one aspect of human life, but Christianity at its core is about love, and we live in a world that desperately needs more love. There was a wonderful priest where I use to live who spoke about love without boundaries, making the point that terrorists love as well, but they have boundaries, and they hate beyond those boundaries. God loves without boundaries, and Christians are called to do the same.
5
To me, the core of Christian beliefs and guidance are found in the "19" commandments. The original 10, the eight beatitudes, and the golden rule.
Church guidance--even though biblically sourced--regarding "homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce and a range of other social issues" seems to be somewhat inconsistent with the 19 commandments.
The 19 commandments don't fit well with our free market capitalist society and its indifference to those who don't measure up in dollars and cents. Maybe the churches should take another look at "original meanings."
Church guidance--even though biblically sourced--regarding "homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce and a range of other social issues" seems to be somewhat inconsistent with the 19 commandments.
The 19 commandments don't fit well with our free market capitalist society and its indifference to those who don't measure up in dollars and cents. Maybe the churches should take another look at "original meanings."
6
Faith is a test. Most commenters here have failed it, and proudly so. "Pride goeth before a fall," and God likes nothing more, it's been said, than to catch out the crafty and the wise with a rigor befitting a Ph.D. candidate's oral exam. And then perdition, or reward. The salvageable souls get Purgatory for an indeterminate term.
I like to imagine God's expression when the soul being judged - if (s)he is deemed worthy of a last judgment - makes animadversions to penumbras and emanations discerned deep in something called the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. And on that slender reed tries to hang 55 Million on-demand abortions, and a media and government and university system that glorifies - there's no other word for it - Homosexuality. "Nothing good that way comes," to any of the world's 4 Billion Christians, Muslims, and lesser religious groupings.
Many of the ennobled Founding Fathers who authored the vagaries in those holier-than-thou documents were slave owners, no less, and Tom Jefferson threw in inter-racial concubinage, too. But let that go. Eternity beckons. Where will you spend it?
As to SCOTUS, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change."
I like to imagine God's expression when the soul being judged - if (s)he is deemed worthy of a last judgment - makes animadversions to penumbras and emanations discerned deep in something called the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. And on that slender reed tries to hang 55 Million on-demand abortions, and a media and government and university system that glorifies - there's no other word for it - Homosexuality. "Nothing good that way comes," to any of the world's 4 Billion Christians, Muslims, and lesser religious groupings.
Many of the ennobled Founding Fathers who authored the vagaries in those holier-than-thou documents were slave owners, no less, and Tom Jefferson threw in inter-racial concubinage, too. But let that go. Eternity beckons. Where will you spend it?
As to SCOTUS, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change."
5
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity (love), I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, (love) I am nothing... - Corinthians 1:13
1
There is no one on Earth who knows more about God than I do. Including you. The writings of men are all speculation.
I have an anecdote that illustrates how the focus on sex and traditional morality actually undermine family and health. A young man I am mentoring got his girlfriend pregnant. Initially he was living with her and her devoutly Fundamentalist parents because he had been kicked out of his mother's house. (His mother could no longer afford to feed him.) Just two days ago, the girlfriend's parents kicked the young man (father of their coming grandchild) out of the house because they were afraid his sin was preventing them from being "right with the Lord." Now he is homeless and their grandson may never know his father and is less likely to receive financial and parenting support. These devouts adults are focused selfishly on their own salvation and not on the selfless love that - according to David Brooks - is the foundation of Christianity.
5
Mr. Brooks is correct that all Christian faiths are losing followers. But beyond that point, he makes no distinction between mainstream Protestants such as ourselves (Congregational UCC), and the most conservative Christians. He discusses us as being mostly of the same ilk.
Regulating sexual behavior is much more important to conservative Christians than it is to some others. As the Catholic theologian John Dominick Crossan (DePaul University) told our UCC fall conference a few years back, Christians to remain or become relevant need to turn our attention from regulating sex to eliminating violence.
We are, after all, followers of the Prince of Peace.
Regulating sexual behavior is much more important to conservative Christians than it is to some others. As the Catholic theologian John Dominick Crossan (DePaul University) told our UCC fall conference a few years back, Christians to remain or become relevant need to turn our attention from regulating sex to eliminating violence.
We are, after all, followers of the Prince of Peace.
8
In other words, start acting like a church instead of a political party.
10
Pervasivness marches on my friend and the moral compass has been totally lost in the activity. right and wrong in terms of one's activities is pretty straighforward, not complicated and need not be re - defined over time..it is black and white so to speak. Christianity is Here to Stay and will always be the primary Religion in this country no matter what the Left Pundits try to convince us of. There is obviously room for other sects and religions but they will not replace Christianity as the overriding, predominant religion. r. Brooks you can openly criticize the convervative philosophy on religion all you want...after all we STILL DO HAVE ( last time I checked ) Freedom of Speech and Religion....unless the LIBS try to re write our Constitution....fat chance.
1
The Bible says that it's OK to own slaves as long as they are from a different tribe. We have since decided that slavery is immoral.
If fundamentalist Christians want to follow the precepts that they believe in, they are free to do so but America is a secular country and the rest of us are free to choose our own path.
If fundamentalist Christians want to follow the precepts that they believe in, they are free to do so but America is a secular country and the rest of us are free to choose our own path.
I have Christian values. We all do. It is our cultural milieu. We don't have Muslim values nor animist values nor Buddhist values nor Confucius's values.
However, I do not have "values" of Brooks' positions on homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce and a range of other social issues.
We disagree. I think his positions are un-Christian. They fail to show love, they fail to forgive, they wallow in hypocrisy. That is not Christian. That is just bigotry.
Real Christians are not bigots. Brooks wants to make a safe space for his chosen bigotry, to be like segregationists and keep holier-than-thou too. Not Christian.
However, I do not have "values" of Brooks' positions on homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce and a range of other social issues.
We disagree. I think his positions are un-Christian. They fail to show love, they fail to forgive, they wallow in hypocrisy. That is not Christian. That is just bigotry.
Real Christians are not bigots. Brooks wants to make a safe space for his chosen bigotry, to be like segregationists and keep holier-than-thou too. Not Christian.
16
"I have Christian values. We all do."
Who is this "we"? Plenty of Muslims and Buddhists in the US. Plenty of us do have Muslim values, Buddhist values, or Confucian values. Not that they are all that different from Christian values, but since you insist on differentiating them...
Cultural milieu? Christian? Really? Cultural milieu looks pretty secular from here.
Who is this "we"? Plenty of Muslims and Buddhists in the US. Plenty of us do have Muslim values, Buddhist values, or Confucian values. Not that they are all that different from Christian values, but since you insist on differentiating them...
Cultural milieu? Christian? Really? Cultural milieu looks pretty secular from here.
1
"Put aside an effort that has been a communications disaster, reducing a rich, complex and beautiful faith into a public obsession with sex." That is a beautifully stated truth about conservatives, which is particularly hypocritical coming from those who "don't want government in our lives", just in our bedrooms.
12
The impressive thing about early Christianity was personal commitment and transformation, and refraining from judging others. Contemporary "Christians" who are harsh regarding those struggling to live in difficult circumstances seem to be Christain in name only. The Christians I know who walk the walk (rather than just talk the talk) are people I admire and feel inspired by. Actions really do speak louder than words. Christ and his disciples helped teach the world about empathy and caring, a revolutionary change. Blessed are the meek, the humble, yes?
5
Once again Brooks is flat out wrong. The social conservatives may subscribe to a religion based on love, but in pratice they are hateful bigots and hypocrites. They would like nothing better to tell everyone else what to believe. These social conservatives are theocratic totalitarians at heart and deed. These social conservatives only believe in religious freedom if they can tell everyone else what to believe.
16
The problem Brooks doesn't see is that conservatives have created a society with nothing worth fighting for - because to "fight for" implies collective action and his philosophy dismisses collective action out of hand. Christians need to THINK about how capitalism intrinsically isolates and atomizes society.
They have to choose between the Calvinist project, which is breaking off a moral "elite" and the Christian project, which is saving souls. American "Christians" no longer care about saving souls. They worship to assert their personal superiority rather than to reaffirm their faith in Salvation and Redemption.
They're lost. They're wrong. Thus, they have lost their Culture War. If they were really Christians, they never would have fought it in the first place.
Matthew 20:25-27
Matthew 25:34-40
They have to choose between the Calvinist project, which is breaking off a moral "elite" and the Christian project, which is saving souls. American "Christians" no longer care about saving souls. They worship to assert their personal superiority rather than to reaffirm their faith in Salvation and Redemption.
They're lost. They're wrong. Thus, they have lost their Culture War. If they were really Christians, they never would have fought it in the first place.
Matthew 20:25-27
Matthew 25:34-40
12
The real question is: Are Christians actually Christians - namely, followers of Jesus Christ? Or are they too busy casting the first stones; judging others, albeit that they shall too be judged; affirming that we are all made in the image and likeness of God, except of course gays; imposing their own religious views via use of civil power (ie, insisting on "establishment" of particular religious norms as public policy, rather than "rendering unto Caesar that which is Cai ser's)? Are they now afraid to ask themselves: "What would Jesus do?" today -- given that Jesus welcomed sinners to his table, while certain of today's Christians won't even serve them pizza?
20
You seem quite judgmental yourself.....take a look in the mirror....
As with abortion, he law-and-order right picks and choose the laws it deigns to obey.
4
Speaking as a somewhat agnostic, "spiritually-oriented" person:
Brooks may be right but the U.S. still doesn't feel that much like a post-Christian culture to me. We've been around this side of the pool before. When was it, 1965, that a TIME Magazine cover asked "Is God Dead?"
Personally I think it's good for us to shed all the hatred and hypocrisy that masquerade as religion but don't forget that enlightened places such as contemporary Sweden are not the only post-Christian nations. Nazi Germany and the Stalinist USSR fit the description also.
Brooks may be right but the U.S. still doesn't feel that much like a post-Christian culture to me. We've been around this side of the pool before. When was it, 1965, that a TIME Magazine cover asked "Is God Dead?"
Personally I think it's good for us to shed all the hatred and hypocrisy that masquerade as religion but don't forget that enlightened places such as contemporary Sweden are not the only post-Christian nations. Nazi Germany and the Stalinist USSR fit the description also.
This discussion should focus on the separation of church and state.
Imposing religious values as a part of the American legal system violates this most basic tenet upon which our country is founded.
If we were to look at this otherwise, why not consider laws about covering women's heads and faces? People are free to do this, but are not arrested (in the US) if they don't.
The key to America is tolerance and freedom... in that context as well as the separation of church and state, we should applaud this decision. What we must also do is let people live their own lives. This does NOT mean allowing people to enforce their views on others through passive or aggressive means. An excellent example is the controversy in NC over having magistrates exempted from performing gay marriages on the basis of their religious beliefs.
People need to make choices for THEMSELVES, not others. While they argue that it is a personal violation to marry couples that don't follow their religion's guidelines, it is really them imposing their view on others, and being allowed to do so. Performing a marriage is NOT the same as getting married. If we were to take the argument allowing folks to not do things they don't believe in, imagine the chaos in business, etc.... I see bad decisions at work every day but I am paid to implement them even though I don't believe in them. How is this different, and when would it logically end?
Imposing religious values as a part of the American legal system violates this most basic tenet upon which our country is founded.
If we were to look at this otherwise, why not consider laws about covering women's heads and faces? People are free to do this, but are not arrested (in the US) if they don't.
The key to America is tolerance and freedom... in that context as well as the separation of church and state, we should applaud this decision. What we must also do is let people live their own lives. This does NOT mean allowing people to enforce their views on others through passive or aggressive means. An excellent example is the controversy in NC over having magistrates exempted from performing gay marriages on the basis of their religious beliefs.
People need to make choices for THEMSELVES, not others. While they argue that it is a personal violation to marry couples that don't follow their religion's guidelines, it is really them imposing their view on others, and being allowed to do so. Performing a marriage is NOT the same as getting married. If we were to take the argument allowing folks to not do things they don't believe in, imagine the chaos in business, etc.... I see bad decisions at work every day but I am paid to implement them even though I don't believe in them. How is this different, and when would it logically end?
9
Interesting article from Mr. Brooks. He seems to imply that Christians today are not doing much in the way of helping those who need help. I can tell you, if that is his assumption, that he is wrong. Millions of Christians are in the trenches helping people with food, shelter, clothing, and other maladies of the poor, destitute and hurting. And this service does not have a price tag. In other words, there is no pressure to "convert" anyone. But, these good works are largely going unnoticed because Jesus says not to make a big deal out of it and because it doesn't fit the narrative of today's broken culture.
6
btw ...
Jesus Christ was NOT a Christian.
Christianity came later as the creation of others, most of whom never heard Jesus' original message.
That is why many Christian acts and ideas are wholly inconsistent with Jesus as described in the Gospels (which themselves were written many years after Jesus died).
Jesus Christ was NOT a Christian.
Christianity came later as the creation of others, most of whom never heard Jesus' original message.
That is why many Christian acts and ideas are wholly inconsistent with Jesus as described in the Gospels (which themselves were written many years after Jesus died).
9
Let's ponder this question - Just exactly why do you think there's all this work to be done in the communities? Which side of the culture wars is responsible for these social disasters?
And as far as 'public obsession about sex', it is the liberals who have this obsession, not conservatives. Who started the culture wars, anyway?
And as far as 'public obsession about sex', it is the liberals who have this obsession, not conservatives. Who started the culture wars, anyway?
4
A loving response to an invitation to love ...
Christianity is declining even faster in Europe than in the quickly following U.S. One hope for that religion in the West is for increased immigration from dynamic Christian cultures in Africa, South and Central America and East Asia. But social conservatives avidly work to close those doors.
1
"Christian" is improperly applied to those who cannot help others without judging them or compelling them to change their behavior. Individuals or organizations unable to drop the rhetoric while offering their neighbor a hand are trying to serve two masters, with the usual unsatisfactory results.
6
"Social conservatives could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love."
That's a nice thought, but I haven't seen much to indicate to me that social conservatives do subscribe to a faith build on selfless love. Much of the faith I see is built around radical individualism with slight extensions to immediate family members or social peers. There's a lot of transactional religion - what I get out of it, how I benefit - vs. faith that invests without expectation of return for the betterment of society.
That's a nice thought, but I haven't seen much to indicate to me that social conservatives do subscribe to a faith build on selfless love. Much of the faith I see is built around radical individualism with slight extensions to immediate family members or social peers. There's a lot of transactional religion - what I get out of it, how I benefit - vs. faith that invests without expectation of return for the betterment of society.
16
This bridge has been burned -- and it was the smug, self-centered, superior Evangelical Christians who did the burning. They've lost the moral high ground, and they will never get it back. Ever.
12
Brilliant. Thank you Mr. Brooks.
1
"Social conservatives could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. " Will our neo-Facist elites even allow this to social conservatives? Or will they be required to tow the political ideology of "correctness and diverslty at every effort? Bet on the latter for we are in the grip of politically correct thinking at every turn.
2
Funny how no comments on Pope Francis's statements, starting with, Who am I to judge? How about, just stop spewing anger and division. And stop denying equality, or that views on equality can change over time.
And stop whining about what "always was", or the literal readings of the Constitution and statutes as dispositive.
In yesterday's NYT review of The Quartet, the final quote is Jefferson's:
"laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind."
And stop whining about what "always was", or the literal readings of the Constitution and statutes as dispositive.
In yesterday's NYT review of The Quartet, the final quote is Jefferson's:
"laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind."
11
This is a nicely written sincere appeal, but I fear it falls on deaf ears on both sides of the spectrum. Those of us who have left organized religion see these religious zealots as people desiring to limit our personal freedoms in speech and behavior and are outraged by their constant hate speech and angered by the fact that their organizations pay no taxes. Their hate speech encourages the weak and vulnerable to violence. Those who participate in anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-feminist, anti-Semitic, and anti-environmental religious communities are highly unlikely, in my view, to moderate or change their views, and as their circle narrows I fear they will only become more violent in words and deeds.
10
This sounds a lot like rich, privileged people coming in to tell poor, diminished people what to do. For a perspective on how well this works, see Orange is the New Black.
3
Breathe, David. Ok, now, say it. You know you want to. It's not hard, really.
SEC-U-LER. Secular. As in "secular society."
It means what you're driving at. Religion does not dominate, it facilitates. Jesus saves, God judges, Christian are here to do good.
SEC-U-LER. Secular. As in "secular society."
It means what you're driving at. Religion does not dominate, it facilitates. Jesus saves, God judges, Christian are here to do good.
1
The comments below that attack Brooks' column state that he is for intolerance. He, however, is pointing out the real risk that a wave of intolerance is looming against all who reject the new sexual orthodoxies.
3
Brooks is certainly correct in this exhortation to the faithful, but also hopelessly Quixotic. The harshly judgmental, politically mercenary strains of conservative Christianity that have held sway over public policy since Reagan’s first term will continue to prevail in GOP primaries and hold onto Gerrymandered state assemblies — and perhaps the US congress — well into the 2020’s. By the time these conservative officeholders are finally swept from power by an overwhelming demographic tide, they will have done irreparable harm to the Christian/“people of faith” brand in both public policy and the popular culture. The irony is that soon enough Evangelical Christianity will martyr itself pursuing an economic and social agenda that couldn’t be less Christ-like.
15
Christians have only themselves to hold accountable for the demise of their religion. Over and over again, church leaders have been shown to be hypocrites. Time and time again, religious leaders have only served to make the faithful feel they are outcasts and not welcome in churches. Ministers have allowed themselves to become larger and more important than the religions they serve.
The Christian religion I was taught as a child was filled with stories of God's love and forgiveness. As a I child, I was encouraged in my Sunday school to have empathy for others, to forgive my trespassers, to turn the other cheek. I was taught to gladly give up some of what I had so that other, less fortunate children could be as comfortable as I was. Now, children are filled with hateful words from sermons. Children give their dollar bills to the church, and the money ends up paying for the preacher's mansion and pinky rings.
I attended a mainstream, protestant church service not too many years ago, only to sit through a sermon that mentioned many perceived wrongs committed by our President. Such a sermon would have been unthinkable when I was young.
Christianity has fallen a long way, and there seems no end to the desire of its leaders to make sure it cannot be revived. In its present state, it doesn't deserve to be.
The Christian religion I was taught as a child was filled with stories of God's love and forgiveness. As a I child, I was encouraged in my Sunday school to have empathy for others, to forgive my trespassers, to turn the other cheek. I was taught to gladly give up some of what I had so that other, less fortunate children could be as comfortable as I was. Now, children are filled with hateful words from sermons. Children give their dollar bills to the church, and the money ends up paying for the preacher's mansion and pinky rings.
I attended a mainstream, protestant church service not too many years ago, only to sit through a sermon that mentioned many perceived wrongs committed by our President. Such a sermon would have been unthinkable when I was young.
Christianity has fallen a long way, and there seems no end to the desire of its leaders to make sure it cannot be revived. In its present state, it doesn't deserve to be.
41
In 1950, my parish priest openly suggested that parishioners vote for the Repubican candidate for mayor. Perhaps this would have been unthinkable in MsPea's youth but was not in mine.
Maybe a better start is to become more pious. David Brooks appears to to just be getting a glimpse of how the social conservative movement became an instrument of prideful correctness and superiority. This has metastasized itself into a genuine hatred of many parts of modern society. Useful change cannot come from this hate. It needs to restart with reaching out and listening to those you fear and dislike. It comes from abandoning judgement and embracing how to improve one another's lives, not just focus on the "bad people." The hardest thing to do is to admit that your perspective just might be the thing that is perpetuating your pain. Start by changing that.
10
"Social conservatives could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love. They can serve as examples of commitment. They are equipped with a vocabulary to distinguish right from wrong, what dignifies and what demeans. They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely."
The problem is that "social conservatives" don't build, rather they crouch in the sinews of society and prey on the "others" (aka designated barbarians, and infidels) who do not think and act like them.
While it is true that civilization is organized around rules and rote (sometimes referred to as the 'rule of law'), it is not true that these are absolutely or immutably available to be used as leverage to create a 'holy tribe among tribes'. Human progress and the progress of civilization depends on the sharing of wealth and the secularized humanization of society.
Judeo-Christian doctrine, and our Constitution enabled us to buy the time necessary to 'evolve through' the mistakes inherent in tribal groupings, kingdoms, Empires, religious states, and 'loosely coupled' democracies, but the future is in a uniform human commitment to humanity rather than tribe, state, or nation. Our values should reflect that without exception.
The problem is that "social conservatives" don't build, rather they crouch in the sinews of society and prey on the "others" (aka designated barbarians, and infidels) who do not think and act like them.
While it is true that civilization is organized around rules and rote (sometimes referred to as the 'rule of law'), it is not true that these are absolutely or immutably available to be used as leverage to create a 'holy tribe among tribes'. Human progress and the progress of civilization depends on the sharing of wealth and the secularized humanization of society.
Judeo-Christian doctrine, and our Constitution enabled us to buy the time necessary to 'evolve through' the mistakes inherent in tribal groupings, kingdoms, Empires, religious states, and 'loosely coupled' democracies, but the future is in a uniform human commitment to humanity rather than tribe, state, or nation. Our values should reflect that without exception.
4
''The more practical struggle (for Conservative's) is to repair a society rendered atomized, unforgiving and inhospitable. Social conservatives are well equipped to repair this fabric, and to serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace.''
How very true and idealistic and yes some Conservatives, the one's I respect have always stood for this. We see it in the incredible restraint of the Church Congregation after being slaughtered by Dylan Roof. In the work of Catholic and other church charities helping the homeless and more centrally in following the example of the LIFE of Jesus Christ who also loved women, cared for all and yet was not against enjoying wine, the company of women and perhaps song.
The problem for David Brooks is the same as that for the GOP as a whole.
While these good people do exist they do not run the GOP today and are not the majority. Indeed most of these good Christians while conservative in their personal morality are often more left on economic issues than is well known (see new Pope Francis).
Indeed when looking for proponents of 'a society rendered atomized, unforgiving and inhospitable.' one has to look no further than the last GOP Convention when the loudest cheers were reserved for those most zealous in pushing the death penalty and for leaving the uninsured to die on the street.
And 'Christian' David Cameron (UK PM) saying that 'more drowned Africans will send a message; you are not wanted here'. Disgusting!
How very true and idealistic and yes some Conservatives, the one's I respect have always stood for this. We see it in the incredible restraint of the Church Congregation after being slaughtered by Dylan Roof. In the work of Catholic and other church charities helping the homeless and more centrally in following the example of the LIFE of Jesus Christ who also loved women, cared for all and yet was not against enjoying wine, the company of women and perhaps song.
The problem for David Brooks is the same as that for the GOP as a whole.
While these good people do exist they do not run the GOP today and are not the majority. Indeed most of these good Christians while conservative in their personal morality are often more left on economic issues than is well known (see new Pope Francis).
Indeed when looking for proponents of 'a society rendered atomized, unforgiving and inhospitable.' one has to look no further than the last GOP Convention when the loudest cheers were reserved for those most zealous in pushing the death penalty and for leaving the uninsured to die on the street.
And 'Christian' David Cameron (UK PM) saying that 'more drowned Africans will send a message; you are not wanted here'. Disgusting!
15
I find that Brooks' conflation of Christians and conservatives to be far too facile. There are numerous conservatives without a lick of faith and many Christians who subscribe to public policies scorned by conservatives.
What galls me are Christians like Governors Jindal, who believe that the First Amendment is a sword to dictate to others, rather than a shield to protect faith. If a county clerk refuses to issue a marriage license to gays because of his faith, or a pharmacist does not want to sell an approved drug because of his faith, then the former is not fit for his office and the latter does not deserve a license.
What galls me are Christians like Governors Jindal, who believe that the First Amendment is a sword to dictate to others, rather than a shield to protect faith. If a county clerk refuses to issue a marriage license to gays because of his faith, or a pharmacist does not want to sell an approved drug because of his faith, then the former is not fit for his office and the latter does not deserve a license.
30
Bingo!
2
Brooks is especially offensive in his assumption that "Evangelicals" or "social conservatives" speak for Christianity or for the substantial body Christians in this country. Many people of more "liberal" or "progressive" denominations (whatever those terms may mean) celebrated desicions last Thursday and Friday, including this Episcopalian, And we lamented a barbaric death penalty decision on Monday.
Even more unfortunate, Brooks is by no means alone in his willful blindness. Many so-called "progressive" commentators make the same convenient assumption, as they inveigh against all organized religion as institutions of intolerance.
Even more unfortunate, Brooks is by no means alone in his willful blindness. Many so-called "progressive" commentators make the same convenient assumption, as they inveigh against all organized religion as institutions of intolerance.
1
I think this statement explains much of the entire piece, "the light of faith burning through the surrounding cultural darkness.” I might rephrase that to say the dark blinders of faith that prevent one from seeing the surrounding cultural brilliance.
I don't feel we are living in a society that is "unforgiving and inhospitable." Neither do my 18 and 20 year old kids. Quite the opposite, in fact. Kids today are doing better than previous generations. And to the extent they do have anxieties and fears--the presence of which is made more apparent by social media--these are no greater than in previous generations. They understand social problems with more nuance and sophistication than my Boomer generation did when we were young, and they are generally much more respectful of their parents and elders than we were. The kids are alright.
There is no cultural darkness, just a group of people who are incapable of seeing the light.
I don't feel we are living in a society that is "unforgiving and inhospitable." Neither do my 18 and 20 year old kids. Quite the opposite, in fact. Kids today are doing better than previous generations. And to the extent they do have anxieties and fears--the presence of which is made more apparent by social media--these are no greater than in previous generations. They understand social problems with more nuance and sophistication than my Boomer generation did when we were young, and they are generally much more respectful of their parents and elders than we were. The kids are alright.
There is no cultural darkness, just a group of people who are incapable of seeing the light.
9
I'm afraid the next culture war will not be one of "selfless love" by defeated conservatives, but the violent lashing out by the most racist and brainwashed among them, as evidenced by the Charleston massacre and the under-reported spate of arson recently directed against black churches across the south.
10
"Social conservatives. . . subscribe to a faith built on selfless love."
Really? Let's see who's running for the GOP presidential nomination: Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, probably Scott Walker. . .
Which of these outstanding social conservatives lives a life of selfless love, or aspires to, or fights for governmental policies and actions that express selfless love?
I suppose it might be true that they "subscribe" to a "faith built on selfless love" in the literal sense that they will sign their name at the bottom of a piece of paper saying they are Christians. . . But what does that mean? And since when has Christianity been "a faith built on selfless love"? Where have you been for the last 2000 years, Dave?
Really? Let's see who's running for the GOP presidential nomination: Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, probably Scott Walker. . .
Which of these outstanding social conservatives lives a life of selfless love, or aspires to, or fights for governmental policies and actions that express selfless love?
I suppose it might be true that they "subscribe" to a "faith built on selfless love" in the literal sense that they will sign their name at the bottom of a piece of paper saying they are Christians. . . But what does that mean? And since when has Christianity been "a faith built on selfless love"? Where have you been for the last 2000 years, Dave?
10
"They fear...their religious liberty will come under greater assault."
News to the fundamentalists: No one is assaulting your religious liberty. You are still free to believe whatever you like. You don't have to engage in homosexual acts, have premarital sex, use contraception, have children out of wedlock or marry a gay.
News to the fundamentalists: No one is assaulting your religious liberty. You are still free to believe whatever you like. You don't have to engage in homosexual acts, have premarital sex, use contraception, have children out of wedlock or marry a gay.
29
Mr. Brooks is asking the target group to be INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE. This is the golden rule. Plain & simple.
7
I have listened to social conservatives claim they are being denied freedom of religion. In this great country of ours, they are free to practice our faith and speak out on any public issue. Their constitutional rights are still intact.
Isn't it about time that they practice tolerance for those who benefited from last week's Supreme Court ruling? Instead of being against something, follow Mother Theresa example and be for an issue that gets this country from where it is to where we would we want it to be?
Isn't it about time that they practice tolerance for those who benefited from last week's Supreme Court ruling? Instead of being against something, follow Mother Theresa example and be for an issue that gets this country from where it is to where we would we want it to be?
2
I appreciate the sense of civility and kindness Brooks writes in his article. But it is intellectually flawed. First he is confused as to who Christians are. Most Christians are not part of the Right Wing culture war. A minority subset of Christians are. Second, he says that " Social conservatives are well equipped to repair this fabric, and to serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace" if they lead a culture war that "is more Albert Schweitzer and Dorothy Day than Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham." Neither Schweitzer nor Day were conservatives. They were very much part of the religious Left. If the social fabric is to be repaired (and it does need to be), it is the religious Left that is equipped and experienced in that task.
10
Also, the religious conservatives are poised to save the Middle East. The delusion in this column is all encompassing. The Christian coalition you imagine died in the 60s. It's on the margins today, with rainbows and equal signs on the bimah.
You refer to Christians as if only right-wing fundamentalist evangelicals are the only true "Christians." You might have mentioned that significant denominations including Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians, among others, do not view all issues or read the Bible in the same way as the right-wing fundamentalist evangelicals, yet they are equally "Christian."
6
Dred Scott legalized an institution that an evolving society has determined to be wrong. The Supreme Court has just legalized an institution that an evolving society has determined to be right.
Religion imposes the view that neither the Supreme court nor an evolving society gets to determine what is right. But religion has evolved into a human construct, and Christianity an oxymoron.
Christianity's namesake didn't start a religion, build churches, or write a manual. But his example and his recorded words – which taken in their entirety include both the easy "Neither do I condemn you" and the hard "Go and sin no more" – are enough for a lifetime's search for meaning.
Religion imposes the view that neither the Supreme court nor an evolving society gets to determine what is right. But religion has evolved into a human construct, and Christianity an oxymoron.
Christianity's namesake didn't start a religion, build churches, or write a manual. But his example and his recorded words – which taken in their entirety include both the easy "Neither do I condemn you" and the hard "Go and sin no more" – are enough for a lifetime's search for meaning.
3
David, why would you assume social conservatives are well-meaning Christians? Well-meaning Christians have opposing political and social views, they are hardly a single outlook with a single voice. "Social conservatism," on the other hand, describes opposition to changing values. People inclined toward social conservatism used to be (maybe still are) people opposed to integration, and people opposed to outlawing slavery. If social conservatives insist their Christian faith requires them to promote social censure, please note the Christian faith of others has no such requirement. For many Christians, faith requires the promotion of tolerance and inclusion. The notion of Christians promoting righteous social censure is perverted and grotesque.
10
"More and more Christians feel estranged from mainstream culture. They fear they will soon be treated as social pariahs, the moral equivalent of segregationists because of their adherence to scriptural teaching on gay marriage."
They only have themselves to blame. The moment they set gay people's rights for a public vote, they set forth the principle that in order for gay people to have rights, they must get a majority of the country to stand with them.
And it did not happen overnight. But they worked, they organized, they toiled, they knocked on millions of doors, made millions of phone calls, had probably a hundred million conversations. And eventually what happened? A majority of the country did stand with them.
And in the process, conservative Christians found that a majority of the country no longer stood with them.
They did not want to. They were forced to.
And who exactly forced them to do that? Conservative Christians who put their rights to a vote in the first place.
And now these same people cry out, oh why? Why Lord is most of this country no longer with us?
Well, someone ought to take a good look in the mirror to find the answer to that question.
They only have themselves to blame. The moment they set gay people's rights for a public vote, they set forth the principle that in order for gay people to have rights, they must get a majority of the country to stand with them.
And it did not happen overnight. But they worked, they organized, they toiled, they knocked on millions of doors, made millions of phone calls, had probably a hundred million conversations. And eventually what happened? A majority of the country did stand with them.
And in the process, conservative Christians found that a majority of the country no longer stood with them.
They did not want to. They were forced to.
And who exactly forced them to do that? Conservative Christians who put their rights to a vote in the first place.
And now these same people cry out, oh why? Why Lord is most of this country no longer with us?
Well, someone ought to take a good look in the mirror to find the answer to that question.
11
Jesus claims to be "the way, truth and life and that NO ONE comes to the Father, except through him". Not a very tolerant message to those who do not see Jesus as God's only son. God is not tolerant of sin, but he gave his Son so that we can overcome sin in Christ. This notion that it is love and tolerance to call "sin" OK is a lie. It is the height of hypocrisy, and totally unloving to silently say nothing and allow people to engage in acts that lead them to hell. The Bible is quite clear on the subject: 1 Cor 6:9-10 "9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. “
Christians will in LOVE tell people that the wages of sin is death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus. It is not to cast stones on the sinner, but to LOVE the sinner by telling them that in their sin, they are dead, but in Christ, can be re-born and have eternal life.
It is not hate to say to the GLBT community that they want to live their life outside of God's will and design, and in opposition to Biblical truths. The mere fact that they win a popularity contest here on earth is not going to help them when they stand before a Holy God to account for their sins, without Christ. Christ lived, died and rose again to free us from sin!
Christians will in LOVE tell people that the wages of sin is death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus. It is not to cast stones on the sinner, but to LOVE the sinner by telling them that in their sin, they are dead, but in Christ, can be re-born and have eternal life.
It is not hate to say to the GLBT community that they want to live their life outside of God's will and design, and in opposition to Biblical truths. The mere fact that they win a popularity contest here on earth is not going to help them when they stand before a Holy God to account for their sins, without Christ. Christ lived, died and rose again to free us from sin!
3
This theology is MORONIC. There is much to be learned from Jesus' instructions about appropriate conduct to our fellows, but where is there any kind of useful truth in the comments regurgitated above? "The wages of sin is death?" What does that even mean?
I'm sorry, but I've never been able to understand how Jesus' death on the cross (with or without the resurrection) frees anybody else from "sin," whatever that is. If I harm or damage a fellow creature, or dump toxic chemicals in a lake, how does claiming to "believe" in a personal Savior undo the damage? It smacks of a bizarre holdover from the propitiatory animal sacrifice of religions too primitive to take seriously.
I can see how, on a symbolic level, recognizing my small but genuine participation in the power of the Life Force connects me to something eternal, but Eternal Life for my personal ego? Who needs it? You have to be really terrified of death to take consolation from a 2000 year old insurance scam. Everybody dies. It isn't a punishment. It's nature.
I'm sorry, but I've never been able to understand how Jesus' death on the cross (with or without the resurrection) frees anybody else from "sin," whatever that is. If I harm or damage a fellow creature, or dump toxic chemicals in a lake, how does claiming to "believe" in a personal Savior undo the damage? It smacks of a bizarre holdover from the propitiatory animal sacrifice of religions too primitive to take seriously.
I can see how, on a symbolic level, recognizing my small but genuine participation in the power of the Life Force connects me to something eternal, but Eternal Life for my personal ego? Who needs it? You have to be really terrified of death to take consolation from a 2000 year old insurance scam. Everybody dies. It isn't a punishment. It's nature.
2
Would you consider it loving of me to point out to you that Jesus said the Christ spirit and kingdom of heaven are within us, and that kingdom is peace and love and joy and goodness. When we simply remain in a state of love, we abide in God, and we fulfill all laws naturally. He said to resist not, even evil, to forgive and not judge. He encouraged us to change ourselves, not our brothers.
He asks that we follow in his footsteps to find the way to the kingdom. He said his purpose in coming was to teach these truths. He did not mention homosexuality or abortion in his teachings. He taught so many other similar themes that were so important - but virtually ignored by so many Christians.
He asks that we follow in his footsteps to find the way to the kingdom. He said his purpose in coming was to teach these truths. He did not mention homosexuality or abortion in his teachings. He taught so many other similar themes that were so important - but virtually ignored by so many Christians.
1
This is not a Christian country. And we are not all Christians. We do not have to follow your faith. We don't have to follow your Bible. And you don't have to marry a gay person. Live and let live. Such a beautiful concept. Freedom. Another beautiful concept. Love. Bigotry, not a beautiful concept.
1
Conservative Christians are worried about what might happen to them if they become a minority. Why, are minorities mistreated or subject to the whims of a popular vote or something?
4
America needs more religion like it needs more guns. We can't get rid of the surfeit as it is. And to liberals appealing to the eight beatitudes? Read them for what they say: we being asked to embrace our misery, choose poverty, and wish for a fairytale afterlife. There's never been a better con to manipulate the masses. Every emperor, pope, and preacher knows it. Keep'em poor, promise them nonsense. How about we put religion where it belongs, safely tucked away in realms of private conscience and personal motivation so that we can do something better in the world, like provide real jobs, a social contract that cares for health, education, children and the elderly, and taking care of this endangered planet?
10
Well, for starters, these diehards could abandon the view that their minority religious views on conduct should be imposed on others by the state and adopt tolerance as a core value. Then they could stop voting for people whose tax and economic policy positions exacerbate the problems to which Brooks refers.
2
The core teachings of all religions are very similar; it is the institutions created around them that have caused most problems for religion. Those institutions have aligned or been co-opted with political parties around carefully targeted areas of concern. The juxtaposition of stances provides the comedy-tragedy dynamic of our current situation, for example: the right to life and the death penalty and carrying guns around like house keys; privacy and sexuality; compassion and support for the unfortunate and the demonizing of people that need it.
The overuse (war used eight times) of emotionally loaded words to grab and hold reader eyes and contribute to rather than illuminate the problems in society is understandable if not helpful.
The overuse (war used eight times) of emotionally loaded words to grab and hold reader eyes and contribute to rather than illuminate the problems in society is understandable if not helpful.
1
I love this quote: "The more practical struggle is to repair a society rendered atomized, unforgiving and inhospitable. Social conservatives are well equipped to repair this fabric, and to serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace." I have serious doubts that social conservatives actually care about the kinds of public policies that can make a difference for people who are down and out. They seem wedded to the economic elite as a matter of policy and ideology. To serve as effective messengers of love, etc. they are going to have to abandon their die-hard commitment to the Republican Party and its economic program. That seems very, very unlikely.
332
Indeed, what goes unmentioned by Mr. Brooks is that some Christian cults (not unlike some other non-Christian ones) actually pray for personal, often material, rewards. This is most notable among "prosperity cults" that literally believe they can pray their way to personal wealth. I suspect a significant (but, I still hope, a minority) share of the religious right place great stock in such beliefs.
Fortunately, there is still a much more realistic and sober strain of Christian faith to which Mr. Brooks might be referring.
Fortunately, there is still a much more realistic and sober strain of Christian faith to which Mr. Brooks might be referring.
According to Jesus the second most important commandment is - "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
The way to people's hearts is through love, compassion and understanding. Hatred, malice and vengeance have no place in the Christian canon. The best parts of Christianity have been overrun by fundamentalists who's real problem is coping with change and modernity and the politicians who use religion as a way of punishing those who don't toe the fundamentalist line. Is it any wonder that people are turned off?
The way to people's hearts is through love, compassion and understanding. Hatred, malice and vengeance have no place in the Christian canon. The best parts of Christianity have been overrun by fundamentalists who's real problem is coping with change and modernity and the politicians who use religion as a way of punishing those who don't toe the fundamentalist line. Is it any wonder that people are turned off?
10
And heaven forbid that the things Christians are being urged to do is to advocate that government feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the widow and the orphan, and break every yoke, as Isaiah says. No, it's just a call to individuals and churches, and it doesn't matter if what they do is insufficient. His basic idea -- that care for the less fortunate is a religious (not just Christian) imperative -- is great, but the test should be effectiveness, not just consistency with Scripture.
7
Howard, you really do not understand that one must individually feed the hungry, clother the naked, care for the widow and the orphan. Advocating for the government to do so does not take off the responsibility to do these things. Getting the government to take other people's money to do something good does not mean that you should abandon this effort in your personal life.
Hypocrites are on both sides of the aisle. Witness the politicians who excite the masses stating that they will tax the rich and feed the poor - yet their personal tax returns show little or no tithing other than a few personal items they submitted to Goodwill. Witness the politicians who yell that we should not over-tax those that are well off and yet do not provide assistance to the needy through their personal commitments.
No one is perfect. It is the extremes of both sides and the hypocrisy that is so alarming.
Hypocrites are on both sides of the aisle. Witness the politicians who excite the masses stating that they will tax the rich and feed the poor - yet their personal tax returns show little or no tithing other than a few personal items they submitted to Goodwill. Witness the politicians who yell that we should not over-tax those that are well off and yet do not provide assistance to the needy through their personal commitments.
No one is perfect. It is the extremes of both sides and the hypocrisy that is so alarming.
This is another version of a war fought 150 years ago. Christian values have replaced States Rights, but everything else is the same. Dixie is the same Dixie, with the same bigotry and intolerance masquerading under different labels.
Let's be honest. The South lost the war, but won the peace. Let's give them the fruit of their victory, and chuck em out, because it is a millstone around our necks, dragging us down, back into the abyss of the early 20th century.
Let's be honest. The South lost the war, but won the peace. Let's give them the fruit of their victory, and chuck em out, because it is a millstone around our necks, dragging us down, back into the abyss of the early 20th century.
6
"Members of the millennial generation are detaching themesleves from religious institutions in droves"
Maybe that is a good thing. The arrogance of religious institutions that without religion, without faith, you can not have a functioning moral compass and be a valuable member of a society is sickening. The arrogance in the absolutism of institutional religious doctrine with their desire to impose it on those who believe otherwise has no place in a modern society.
Currently the Pope enjoys a great deal of popularity, even among non-catholics. He does this first and foremost because he displays humility. I respect his value system and appreciate that his and mine are not alike. I mostly respect him though for his humility of not seeking to condemn me.
Maybe that is a good thing. The arrogance of religious institutions that without religion, without faith, you can not have a functioning moral compass and be a valuable member of a society is sickening. The arrogance in the absolutism of institutional religious doctrine with their desire to impose it on those who believe otherwise has no place in a modern society.
Currently the Pope enjoys a great deal of popularity, even among non-catholics. He does this first and foremost because he displays humility. I respect his value system and appreciate that his and mine are not alike. I mostly respect him though for his humility of not seeking to condemn me.
8
David Brooks s suggesting something very good; that evangelical Christians follow the old testament God of the Hebrew bible; a God of distributive justice. For 30 years or more evangelical Christians have followed the God of retributive justice; thus our never ending culture war. His plan just might work.
5
David writes "Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other. Those are the people who converse with us about the transcendent in everyday life."
"Those" sound a lot like Catholic nuns, at least in my experience.
"Those" sound a lot like Catholic nuns, at least in my experience.
4
What makes you think only Catholic nuns help those who are spiritually impoverished? Every time you smile, every time you donate your time, money and energy--you are part of the solution.
1
You're right, Chris. The trouble is that the tasks are many and the nuns get fewer every year.
I think that what Brooks is saying is that the right-of-center Protestants have the numbers and organizational skills to accomplish a lot of good. The question he asks is: Do they have the inclination?
I wonder, though, if the whole business about having one's "personal Jesus" might get in the way of doing God's work. Some born-agains (by no means all!) seem to believe that their acceptance of the faith means that they are eternally saved, and so have no need to actually do good. Or to do anything, I suppose, except to wait for death and afterlife.
I think that what Brooks is saying is that the right-of-center Protestants have the numbers and organizational skills to accomplish a lot of good. The question he asks is: Do they have the inclination?
I wonder, though, if the whole business about having one's "personal Jesus" might get in the way of doing God's work. Some born-agains (by no means all!) seem to believe that their acceptance of the faith means that they are eternally saved, and so have no need to actually do good. Or to do anything, I suppose, except to wait for death and afterlife.
There is a profound reason as to why Christianity is in decline in the United States. Being Christian means to adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ...
and most of us have picked over the canons about forgiveness, love and not judging our neighbors, and gone straight to the confines of an organized theology. I have several friends who volunteer at a shelter and they started
with love and helping their neighbors, but after a while, on a comfortable back porch and a glass of wine, the judgment begins, and the unkind words and then complete contempt. The compassion is completely gone.
Can one help someone else while bringing to the forefront one's own hypocrisy? Perhaps the word "Christian" should not
be bandied about meaning all that is good, when American Christianity has gotten a fungus that is rotting out the core. Perhaps Christianity should borrow from the Asian philosophy: I see God within you.....
and most of us have picked over the canons about forgiveness, love and not judging our neighbors, and gone straight to the confines of an organized theology. I have several friends who volunteer at a shelter and they started
with love and helping their neighbors, but after a while, on a comfortable back porch and a glass of wine, the judgment begins, and the unkind words and then complete contempt. The compassion is completely gone.
Can one help someone else while bringing to the forefront one's own hypocrisy? Perhaps the word "Christian" should not
be bandied about meaning all that is good, when American Christianity has gotten a fungus that is rotting out the core. Perhaps Christianity should borrow from the Asian philosophy: I see God within you.....
6
Please don't make the mistake of thinking all Christians are conservative. I wasn't alone in my church in celebrating Friday's ruling for same-sex marriage.
4
Just curious...but do you think your celebration was consistent with God's word and if so, could you point to the passage that calls sin OK?
1
You really should read your readers' comments for a change, Mr. Brooks.
I do. And I suggest that many of your readers understand Christianity far better than you apparently do.
Really, check out the comments, Mr. Brooks. You might learn something.
I do. And I suggest that many of your readers understand Christianity far better than you apparently do.
Really, check out the comments, Mr. Brooks. You might learn something.
5
David:
You are a conservative that has really good and relevant views on life in the US.
IMHO when the pill arrived, that was the true sexual revolution and I happily participated in that revolution when living in NYC in the late 60's.
After moving back to the bible belt after many years, life does have a different cadence down here. You never ever go shopping on a Sunday morning - there are so many churches that the parishioners cause lengthy traffic jams.
IMHO it is all a matter of education - the state of MS has the lowest level of education in the USA and the highest rate of church attendance.
You are a conservative that has really good and relevant views on life in the US.
IMHO when the pill arrived, that was the true sexual revolution and I happily participated in that revolution when living in NYC in the late 60's.
After moving back to the bible belt after many years, life does have a different cadence down here. You never ever go shopping on a Sunday morning - there are so many churches that the parishioners cause lengthy traffic jams.
IMHO it is all a matter of education - the state of MS has the lowest level of education in the USA and the highest rate of church attendance.
2
Conservatives are entitled to their own views on sex and marriage. They need to learn how to mind their own business.
10
In other words, "live and let live."
"Social conservatives are well equipped to repair this fabric, and to serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace." I couldn't disagree more with this statement. The last people that are able to change their hidebound attitudes are conservatives, otherwise they wouldn't be called "conservatives". Brooks separates himself from the conservatives and lightly condemns them for focusing on sex instead of culture and then suggests a multitude of social problems that could be solved by social conservatives. The death knells sounded many years ago for conservatism and what we have been witnessing is its last death throes. Change and chaos are handmaidens marching into the future regardless those "isms" that try to stand in their way.
1
People of faith in God, faith in man, and with no particular faith at all have been drawn to feed the hungry, heal the sick, reform society from within. Christians of good will have for centuries been among the vanguard in social welfare and charity. However, politicians on the right have manipulated the Evangelical movement, perverting the intention of the faithful like so many Jihadis. It is the liberal ethos that more closely mirrors the social morality of the Bible, the morality that states the love, especially love for ones neighbor, is as high a calling as the love of God. Power structures whose selfish interests would find few supporters among the general public have been able to rile up Believers in order to create a popular base that consistently votes against its own economic and environmental interests. The powerful and wealthy lead these people around by the nose, focusing their attention toward abortion, gun rights and the tiny homosexual community instead of the widening income gap, the degradation of our social and natural environment, and the oligarchic manipulation of Washington. Instead of the servants of the Lord, the religious right have become the handmaidens of a powerful economic elite concerned only with the protection of their own special rights and property.
9
Well said. That's exactly what's happening.
As reflected by many of the comments here, Mr. Brooks has somehow managed to disregard or ignore a huge, committed, Christ-centered (as opposed to "judgmentally centered") swath of modern mainline Christianity. Leading the way back to a unsullied, welcoming, inclusive brand of Christian faith — that espoused by Jesus Himself throughout the Gospel, particularly in passages like Matthew 25 — are "old liners" like the Evangelican Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church and now the Presbyterian church, whose national leaders recently voted to join the ranks of Protestants who welcome LGBTQ pastors and lay leaders. As a longtime ELCA Lutheran — a denomination that, admittedly, took many years to emerge from the shadow of Martin Luther's well-documented 16th century bigotry — I take issue being lumped in with the "social conservatives" who, by Brooks' reckoning, comprise the only family of Christians who matter. We "liberal" Christians wrestle with the vagaries and contradictions of faith; we don't subscribe to black-and-white tropes or strident codes of living. Through Christ's sacrifice and freeing grace, we see the world as God's creation in the broadest and brightest way we can. If the conservative "Christians" wish to retreat into their hovels of fear and avoidance of human reality, that's fine. But I encourage them to emerge into the light and leave their monochromatic mindset behind.
10
David starts with 'Christianity' and 'evangelical' but shifts to 'social conservatives'. He hopes to be regarded as their friend and admirer.
These same 'social conservatives' are the ones who believe that Jews need to exclusively inhabit biblical Israel so the savior can come again, and so support Netanyahu and his greater Israel program. They are the active base of the right wing of the Republican party and their energy is funneled by right wing Republican 'leaders' into support for aggressive, destructive, and wrong-headed public policies of many sorts, such as climate change denial, evolution denial, women's rights denial, voter suppression, campaign finance reform obstruction and radical political polarization to the point where reasonable conversation can't even occur and the right has created an echo chamber for themselves.
Well, just as blades of grass penetrate the mighty asphalt progressive laws finally break through.
These same 'social conservatives' are the ones who believe that Jews need to exclusively inhabit biblical Israel so the savior can come again, and so support Netanyahu and his greater Israel program. They are the active base of the right wing of the Republican party and their energy is funneled by right wing Republican 'leaders' into support for aggressive, destructive, and wrong-headed public policies of many sorts, such as climate change denial, evolution denial, women's rights denial, voter suppression, campaign finance reform obstruction and radical political polarization to the point where reasonable conversation can't even occur and the right has created an echo chamber for themselves.
Well, just as blades of grass penetrate the mighty asphalt progressive laws finally break through.
6
Following David Brooks' reasoning and interpretation/sense of Christianity and Republicanism, I guess we can now expect Bernie Sanders to get the GOP nomination and sweep the Red States in the 2016 election.
5
What Gandhi said might ring true for how most people feel about Charistianity: "Give me your Christ and take away your Christianity."
11
"homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce and a range of other social issues"
Realize what has really been of concern. Essentially, Republican conservatives have rallied around control of reproductive organs. Christian values, and what Jesus taught is much more than control of human gonads. But DC Republicans have reduced Christianity into this mere sphere of concern.
What other social issues have politically outspoken conservatives advocated?
Peace instead of War? no. Concern for the poor? no. Compassion for all? no.
Personal sacrifice for the common good? no.
etc...
Realize what has really been of concern. Essentially, Republican conservatives have rallied around control of reproductive organs. Christian values, and what Jesus taught is much more than control of human gonads. But DC Republicans have reduced Christianity into this mere sphere of concern.
What other social issues have politically outspoken conservatives advocated?
Peace instead of War? no. Concern for the poor? no. Compassion for all? no.
Personal sacrifice for the common good? no.
etc...
28
"More and more Christians feel estranged from mainstream culture. They fear they will soon be treated as social pariahs..."
Maybe now they'll have an understanding as to how gay people have been feeling.
Maybe now they'll have an understanding as to how gay people have been feeling.
15
Oh, sure. I remember when people led by Democrat Loretta Weinberg in Trenton were demanding Gay Marriage in lieu of Civil Unions in NJ and crying for an end to "harassment," etc. The state agency responsible for enforcing tolerance toward homosexuals showed a grand total, in a state of 8 million, of THREE (3) complaints by harassed homosexuals. 1, 2, 3. Get a clue.
Hard to believe that Brooks is to the left of anything.
It might help the Christians if they practiced more of what they preach. Tolerance, kindness, openness. Certainly many of them do, but the evangelicals are about exclusion rather than inclusion.
It might help the Christians if they practiced more of what they preach. Tolerance, kindness, openness. Certainly many of them do, but the evangelicals are about exclusion rather than inclusion.
11
I started out not liking this column - the description of the gay marriage affirmation as a "body blow onto this beleaguered" group of Christians really put me off. But Brooks was exercising empathy, and doing so to help position his call for something radical and welcome: a return to the roots of Christianity. It sure would be great if the Christian values of love, compassion and connectedness for all people, particularly the disadvantaged and downtrodden, became the primary focus of the Christian community in the US.
7
A couple of points.
1. The idea that "Most Christian commentary" is typified by the soi-disant revanchists at First Things just shows that David Brooks must be getting his notions of what Christian intellectuals are talking about from Ross Douthat.
2. The idea that "Robert George [is] probably the most brilliant social conservative theorist in the country" says more about either the intellectual poverty of social conservatism, or Brooks' abysmal lack of knowledge about what is going on in serious Christian intellectual circles -- or both.
Robert George can't even get his Aquinas straight.
3. It's not as if it's been out of the news as to how Pope Francis has been approaching the issues that Brooks raises. Thus, it should be pretty clear to anyone who has read Laudato Si' - has Brooks? - that Francis would not accept that the range of options for Christians - and even David Brooks - is exhausted by "in private, tith[ing] to the poor and nurtur[ing] the lonely."
Brooks does admonish First Thinger-like Christians to come out from under their private bushels into the light of public space. But his recommendations, other than helping out at the soup kitchen, are a coded rehash of every suburban parent's concern how to keep sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll on a leash for their children - now that they may have survived the storm of their own teen-aged and millennial hormones.
Francis is concerned about SDR, no doubt. But he seems much more concerned about the environment.
1. The idea that "Most Christian commentary" is typified by the soi-disant revanchists at First Things just shows that David Brooks must be getting his notions of what Christian intellectuals are talking about from Ross Douthat.
2. The idea that "Robert George [is] probably the most brilliant social conservative theorist in the country" says more about either the intellectual poverty of social conservatism, or Brooks' abysmal lack of knowledge about what is going on in serious Christian intellectual circles -- or both.
Robert George can't even get his Aquinas straight.
3. It's not as if it's been out of the news as to how Pope Francis has been approaching the issues that Brooks raises. Thus, it should be pretty clear to anyone who has read Laudato Si' - has Brooks? - that Francis would not accept that the range of options for Christians - and even David Brooks - is exhausted by "in private, tith[ing] to the poor and nurtur[ing] the lonely."
Brooks does admonish First Thinger-like Christians to come out from under their private bushels into the light of public space. But his recommendations, other than helping out at the soup kitchen, are a coded rehash of every suburban parent's concern how to keep sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll on a leash for their children - now that they may have survived the storm of their own teen-aged and millennial hormones.
Francis is concerned about SDR, no doubt. But he seems much more concerned about the environment.
10
Back in the good ole conservative days of the 'Clan of the Cave Bears', it may have been true that after a lot of reflection, some local, self serving social conservative clan member felt something like empathy (for some strange reason) and agreed to help someone sitting next to him, but, it's unlikely. More likely, the annoying person in need was ostracized from the clan.
In the modern world, the social conservative approach is just to move away from those annoying people in need and leave them to the used, abused, and long since abandoned capitalist infrastructure that was left behind by previous generations of wealth grabbers...............with a few selective moments of coin throwing when the Rolls is passing through 'needy territory' on its way to one's 'other home' in one of the other isolated communities of deserving, similar folk.
In the modern world, the social conservative approach is just to move away from those annoying people in need and leave them to the used, abused, and long since abandoned capitalist infrastructure that was left behind by previous generations of wealth grabbers...............with a few selective moments of coin throwing when the Rolls is passing through 'needy territory' on its way to one's 'other home' in one of the other isolated communities of deserving, similar folk.
1
The Brooksian religiosity in this column is almost as disgusting as the backwardness and imperialism of fundamentalist, evangelical Christians. Has Brooks given up on straight political comment and support of the hapless GOP of today?
12
It is a social conservative mandate to scrounge, grab, and/or otherwise inhabit the delusionary comfort of the rules and rote of some 'glorified past reality
rather than risk the perils and uncertainties of 'current reality'.
Any 'stray rays' of reality must be twisted and bent to support the pillars of delusion that 'mask out' all, but the self serving threads of current reality. And through it all, there is no consideration for any change or innovation that could, in itself, justify a change in thinking except those with an inherent personal reward. And even in those cases, the reward is simply attributed to the 'values, the rules, and the rote' underlying the delusion, and no actual change in thinking occurs.......just a pat on the back for maintaining delusion.
The more conservative an underlying ideology (or religion) is, the more likely it is that it contains 'built-in' reinforcing 'traps' designed to protect it against reality and internal dissent. Islam is the youngest, most successful, and probably the quintessentially most 'self regulating' conservative ideology ever conceived, where dissent, or nonconformance is simply a death sentence.
We live in a Universe where continuous, happenstantial change is served up along the curves and spirals of geologic/cosmic time. The conservative preference to 'cling' to the rules and rote of the straight lines that live in 'human time' is missing the point!
rather than risk the perils and uncertainties of 'current reality'.
Any 'stray rays' of reality must be twisted and bent to support the pillars of delusion that 'mask out' all, but the self serving threads of current reality. And through it all, there is no consideration for any change or innovation that could, in itself, justify a change in thinking except those with an inherent personal reward. And even in those cases, the reward is simply attributed to the 'values, the rules, and the rote' underlying the delusion, and no actual change in thinking occurs.......just a pat on the back for maintaining delusion.
The more conservative an underlying ideology (or religion) is, the more likely it is that it contains 'built-in' reinforcing 'traps' designed to protect it against reality and internal dissent. Islam is the youngest, most successful, and probably the quintessentially most 'self regulating' conservative ideology ever conceived, where dissent, or nonconformance is simply a death sentence.
We live in a Universe where continuous, happenstantial change is served up along the curves and spirals of geologic/cosmic time. The conservative preference to 'cling' to the rules and rote of the straight lines that live in 'human time' is missing the point!
Very good article. My only criticism is that it sounds like Mr. Brooks is addressing this only to social conservatives. Isn't what he proposes something that should unite us instead of framing it as "the next culture war"?
5
Brooks thrives on culture wars. It would be bad for business for him - and the Republicans who appear to support Christians as a cover for actually supporting big business interests - if we all got along.
The culture wars are essential foils for conservative thinking. Without them, we'd all be progressive, commie, liberals looking for ways to enlighten and advance humans and human civilization.
I mean come on now! How would we maintain our vast investment and productivity in R&D without a significant war machine. The last 35 years have clearly demonstrated that there is no possible way that we could leave that task to the "job creators" (aka, the herders, and shepherds who milk and sheer the flocks of government sponsored R&D) with the help of their bought and paid for Congressional advocates.
In the end the culture war and it's war against "big government" is a war to 'take over government' and eliminate its inefficient proclivity to benefit ALL citizens rather than just its 'self designated, holier than thou, conservative' citizens.
It's been going on for millennia, but I'm sensing that the current advent of the "information age" is going to make it a lot more difficult for conservatives to justify a return to the 'good life' that we left behind in the 1st, 7th, 13th, or even the 15th century. Their going to have to update their 'delusional' selves to incorporate the realities that are replacing the 'mysticism and beliefs' that have been used for centuries to explain away the unexplainable.
It's a rare time when the 'flat, straight line' of conservative delusion comes face to face with the round, spiral curves of geologic/cosmic time and human progress.
I mean come on now! How would we maintain our vast investment and productivity in R&D without a significant war machine. The last 35 years have clearly demonstrated that there is no possible way that we could leave that task to the "job creators" (aka, the herders, and shepherds who milk and sheer the flocks of government sponsored R&D) with the help of their bought and paid for Congressional advocates.
In the end the culture war and it's war against "big government" is a war to 'take over government' and eliminate its inefficient proclivity to benefit ALL citizens rather than just its 'self designated, holier than thou, conservative' citizens.
It's been going on for millennia, but I'm sensing that the current advent of the "information age" is going to make it a lot more difficult for conservatives to justify a return to the 'good life' that we left behind in the 1st, 7th, 13th, or even the 15th century. Their going to have to update their 'delusional' selves to incorporate the realities that are replacing the 'mysticism and beliefs' that have been used for centuries to explain away the unexplainable.
It's a rare time when the 'flat, straight line' of conservative delusion comes face to face with the round, spiral curves of geologic/cosmic time and human progress.
A few things come to mind regarding Evangelical Christians v everyone else culturally. Metaphorically, it's said that a child stays in it's own back yard until a fence is erected; then the child climbs over the fence. That said, people generally require self-determination; need to find their own path; discover their own values. Thus trying to force on a society ones own views by fencing people in forces crawl overs. Also, because self-determination is paramount, crawl overs can even be seen among those who espouse a strict moral code yet hypocritically find themselves on the other side of their own fence. And it's most likely the hypocrisy that younger generations rebel against. So the best that any Christian group can do if they want to make a difference is model behavior that Jesus taught and demonstrated. And that includes being non judgmental; unconditional love/acceptance of everyone; those without "sin" cast the first stone; take the beam out of your own eye before trying to take the speck out of another.
9
A reread of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond would help most folks introduce a few pages of reality into their otherwise 'rumor and myth' driven view of the 'way things are'.
Yesterday, on All Things Considered, in a segment about Christian pastors rejecting the same-sex marriage decision, one such pastor made the following remark: "LANE: This was not established as a secular nation, and anybody that says that it is, they're not reading American history. This was established by Christians for the advancement of the Christian faith. My goal is to return - to restore a biblically based culture and a Judeo-Christian heritage." Such thinking strays dangerously close to the type of religious ideology vehemently rejected by conservatives when it involves a religion other than Christianity. Much like we say radical Islam is not really Islam at all, THIS is not Christianity. No true Christian would behave in such an un-Christian way. I can't help but think that many of these so-called pastors are just afraid of having their revenue stream dry-up if they can't maintain a tight grip over the ideology. I'd like to hope I am wrong, but I suspect there may be some truth in that.
8
The Evangelical Christian Right, to a man or woman, are no different from the extremist Mullahs of the Islamic Middle East. They are anti-Christ and anti-American. David Brooks is so slow he doesn't get this. Doesn't fit his notion of his profile as thoughtful Conservative.
Having witnessed the hate speech pouring from so called Christians I stopped being one. I still hold to the teachings of Christ but I can not identify myself with a group that would practice exclusion, send out missionaries who disrespect local cultures, or tell people in our society like homosexuals that they are sinners. I have also witnessed a high degree of racism in evangelical groups. It seems people like this believe in God so that they can tell themselves they are good in spite of the hate they feel in their hearts and practice in their everyday lives.
12
why oh why do you conflate the beliefs of a subset of evangelicals with all of "orthodox" christianity. arguably they are the fringe; unarguably, you have tarred a diverse global religion
6
Sectarian wars are the result of the disparity in our 'Earthly' interpretations of the diverse spectrum of religious doctrine.
The politics of religion have been killing humans around the world for millennia. Maybe we should try to find a larger consensus in a less diverse spectrum of doctrine based on secular humanism. I don't think that 'the creator' will mind if we find a way to prove that 'its creation' is capable of accepting responsibility and accountability for its own destiny.
Morality is one thing, but all religions have a general consensus on what that is (even though they may differ on how to deal with outliers). On the other hand, responsibility and accountability for self is quite another animal. Careful examination more or less shows that arguments about religious doctrine are all about 'who's got the best and most powerful crutch'. Maybe we should be discussing whether or not our 'raison d etre' requires a crutch at all.
The politics of religion have been killing humans around the world for millennia. Maybe we should try to find a larger consensus in a less diverse spectrum of doctrine based on secular humanism. I don't think that 'the creator' will mind if we find a way to prove that 'its creation' is capable of accepting responsibility and accountability for its own destiny.
Morality is one thing, but all religions have a general consensus on what that is (even though they may differ on how to deal with outliers). On the other hand, responsibility and accountability for self is quite another animal. Careful examination more or less shows that arguments about religious doctrine are all about 'who's got the best and most powerful crutch'. Maybe we should be discussing whether or not our 'raison d etre' requires a crutch at all.
Progressive Christians often focus on just the sorts of things that Mr. Brooks is advocating. They get less attention because they are less divisive in the larger culture on social issues and often their theology supports progressive social issues anyway. In my UCC church we've supported and pushed for Gay Marriage as a part of our faith; God loves all and calls us to be true to ourselves and our families. We also are passionate about addressing climate change as a call to care for God's land and those who are under hardship due to the way our planet is taken care of. It would be refreshing to point toward good work people already do in the direction Mr. Brooks is suggesting or to highlight outlets where people can find faith without social judgement. Many people don't go to church because they think that everyone at every church has their head in the sand because they read articles like this and assume that all Christians are all focused on socially conservative issues and agree with socially conservative issues, which is just not true. I commend Mr. Brooks' intentions but it's frustrating to see the focus always be on the segment of Christianity that is louder and more divisive. They are not the only Christians.
9
Well said. I attend a church that is similar to Kjersten. I thought the article was unusually harsh and very short-sighted towards Christians.
If the founding father's hadn't made religion subservient to Democracy, we'd be the western mirror image of the Middle East.
All religions are constructed on the hierarchical political model of autocratic rule, and while it's true that there may be a deity involved, ALL of his or her words and thoughts are filtered and distributed through the 'Earthly aristocratic couriers' of the autocracy.
This could still work if there was only ONE religion. In the absence of that, competition between the religions muddies the waters of morality with human arguments over the subtly different interpretations of the rules that are conveyed by the respective groups of aristocratic messengers/interpreters.
American has survived and thrived because Christianity is part of its fabric, but not the ONLY part. The idea was to entitle and empower the humans to take responsibility and accountability for their day-to-day Earthly destiny.
Personally, I'm thinking that that idea makes a lot more sense for the creator even if it does put the 'Earthly aristocracy' and it's politics out of a job.
All religions are constructed on the hierarchical political model of autocratic rule, and while it's true that there may be a deity involved, ALL of his or her words and thoughts are filtered and distributed through the 'Earthly aristocratic couriers' of the autocracy.
This could still work if there was only ONE religion. In the absence of that, competition between the religions muddies the waters of morality with human arguments over the subtly different interpretations of the rules that are conveyed by the respective groups of aristocratic messengers/interpreters.
American has survived and thrived because Christianity is part of its fabric, but not the ONLY part. The idea was to entitle and empower the humans to take responsibility and accountability for their day-to-day Earthly destiny.
Personally, I'm thinking that that idea makes a lot more sense for the creator even if it does put the 'Earthly aristocracy' and it's politics out of a job.
Like many of his GOP ilk, Brooks confuses the Christian religion with Christian institutions. The institutions are indeed having problems in this country. That is because they have allowed themselves to be co-opted by a conservative political movement that many, especially the young, find repugnant. They've given many the impression that Christianity is concerned with no moral issues other than sex and reproduction, and that capitalist greed, thievery and warmongering are in accord with the gospel preached by Jesus. When we see evangelical clergy supporting a president who starts a war based on lies and approves the torture of prisoners, what else are we to think?
Christian institutions can win back at least some of the people they've lost by separating themselves from the greedy, hatemongering conservatives and returning to the revolutionary, anti-materialist doctrines Jesus actually preached. When they start denouncing the financial institutions that cheat and deceive people, when they focus on the violence and evil our military has perpetrated all over the world, then they will regain some of the authenticity they have lost.
Christian institutions can win back at least some of the people they've lost by separating themselves from the greedy, hatemongering conservatives and returning to the revolutionary, anti-materialist doctrines Jesus actually preached. When they start denouncing the financial institutions that cheat and deceive people, when they focus on the violence and evil our military has perpetrated all over the world, then they will regain some of the authenticity they have lost.
14
The cold fact is that the 'institutionalization' of ANY ideology introduces both 'collective human emotion', and politics into the expression of ideological values.
Human emotion, and human politics are ALWAYS subject to change. Time and circumstances also create holistic changes in context that change.
At some points time, it may be beneficial to unyieldingly cling to the rules, rote, and traditions of the past, but in most instances change is going to be the better option. That's pretty much proven by the fact that most of us make it to adulthood by madly taking, experiencing, and overcoming risk and uncertainty, and most of us thrive throughout life by changing to adapt to ongoing risk and uncertainty.
The key to advancing civilization is the conscious, collective acceptance of calculated risk and uncertainty.
Conservatives seem to be born/conditioned with an inclination to define a 'formula for success'. Those who achieve success attribute it to the formula and their good sense to use it, rather than to the personal happenstance and platform of civilization that actually delivers it.
I will concede that a plan makes more sense than wandering around aimlessly. At the same time, it's hard to distinguish which part of the platform of civilization was built by the wanderers and which was built by the planners.
The moral of the story is: have a plan if you must, but don't go around superciliously undermining or denigrating the wanderers.
Human emotion, and human politics are ALWAYS subject to change. Time and circumstances also create holistic changes in context that change.
At some points time, it may be beneficial to unyieldingly cling to the rules, rote, and traditions of the past, but in most instances change is going to be the better option. That's pretty much proven by the fact that most of us make it to adulthood by madly taking, experiencing, and overcoming risk and uncertainty, and most of us thrive throughout life by changing to adapt to ongoing risk and uncertainty.
The key to advancing civilization is the conscious, collective acceptance of calculated risk and uncertainty.
Conservatives seem to be born/conditioned with an inclination to define a 'formula for success'. Those who achieve success attribute it to the formula and their good sense to use it, rather than to the personal happenstance and platform of civilization that actually delivers it.
I will concede that a plan makes more sense than wandering around aimlessly. At the same time, it's hard to distinguish which part of the platform of civilization was built by the wanderers and which was built by the planners.
The moral of the story is: have a plan if you must, but don't go around superciliously undermining or denigrating the wanderers.
"Scriptural teaching on gay marriage"? The Bible does not take a position on "gay" marriage, Mr. Brooks. People do. And that is all there is to it.
9
I refer eveyone to the Preacher in "The Grapes of Wrath" There ain't no good and there ain't no evil. There's just what people do.
Actually, traditional (aka ancient) marriage was a 'business deal' between the corporations of the time (aka families), and in most cases, the women where chattel.
The "Judeo portion" of the bible deals with the practical issues of procreation, survival, vengeance, and struggle. The "Christian portion" of the bible deals with unconstrained love for our fellow men (and sometimes women).
In 'those days' the vast majority of human behaviors on the human spectrum were never mentioned or dealt with in any detail. Except, of course, those that were the most identifiably disturbing or disruptive, and they were conveyed by word or song of mouth long enough to survive the advent of writing (at which time they were preserved for posterity). Embarrassing, self incriminating, badly conceived, or badly told songs and stories probably never made it to the written word.
Old books based on weathered parables and rumors have value, but not ABSOLUTE value.
The "Judeo portion" of the bible deals with the practical issues of procreation, survival, vengeance, and struggle. The "Christian portion" of the bible deals with unconstrained love for our fellow men (and sometimes women).
In 'those days' the vast majority of human behaviors on the human spectrum were never mentioned or dealt with in any detail. Except, of course, those that were the most identifiably disturbing or disruptive, and they were conveyed by word or song of mouth long enough to survive the advent of writing (at which time they were preserved for posterity). Embarrassing, self incriminating, badly conceived, or badly told songs and stories probably never made it to the written word.
Old books based on weathered parables and rumors have value, but not ABSOLUTE value.
Mr. Brooks, did you ever think that many of things Christians rally around today are the antithesis of what Jesus tried to teach?
Who was more tolerant?
Who was more forgiving?
What did he EVER have to say about homosexuality and abortion?
Who was more tolerant?
Who was more forgiving?
What did he EVER have to say about homosexuality and abortion?
8
Jesus never did discuss or otherwise rule on the dilemma of forming an organized group of humans into a group.
Well meaning as they are, the resulting politics and economic endeavors of forming 'a church' are ultimately contrary to ALL Christian doctrine. It's an oxymoron encapsulated in institutionalized hypocrisy.
As with all ideologies, Christianity requires the faithful to filter any negative reality that does not conform to the perfection of the underlying delusion. If it or it's values are suffering, it's due to the cracks in it's dome of delusion.
Well meaning as they are, the resulting politics and economic endeavors of forming 'a church' are ultimately contrary to ALL Christian doctrine. It's an oxymoron encapsulated in institutionalized hypocrisy.
As with all ideologies, Christianity requires the faithful to filter any negative reality that does not conform to the perfection of the underlying delusion. If it or it's values are suffering, it's due to the cracks in it's dome of delusion.
No one is born a Christian. You have to learn to be intolerant of others and understand that the so call 10 commandments are to be interpreted.
7
You have to be carefully taught,before you are six or seven or eight... South Pacific.
1
Learning is a funny thing. In the case of "morality", I believe that most people are born with an inner understanding that 'united we stand, and divided we fall'. It is in all of our 'self interest' to be moral, and only the weak or 'otherwise divergent' settle on the idea of exploiting rather than leveraging our human "morality".
The problem is that we also have a circle of trust that is still highly rooted in 'blood relatives', sycophants, and our 'tribe of preference' (religion, state, nation, or "brotherhood/sisterhood"). This bends our "morality".
This is further complicated by the fact that everything in our Universe (except conscious human endeavors) is a result of some trial and error convergence of matter, energy, surrounding context, and time. Up until recently, even human conception and birth were, for all intents and purposes, completely happenstantial.
However, humans, as it turns out, are a completely contrarian species. We have survived and thrived by overcoming and redirecting the constraints of nature, and the physical laws that govern our universe. We (most of us) call that progress.
The question is: can we survive as contrarian species, and if so would we also be able to 'eliminate' the 'outliers' who do not conform to the "morality" of human dignity and equality? or would we find a way to live with some level of outliers in order to retain the diversity that could one day save us from some unexpected challenge from nature?
The problem is that we also have a circle of trust that is still highly rooted in 'blood relatives', sycophants, and our 'tribe of preference' (religion, state, nation, or "brotherhood/sisterhood"). This bends our "morality".
This is further complicated by the fact that everything in our Universe (except conscious human endeavors) is a result of some trial and error convergence of matter, energy, surrounding context, and time. Up until recently, even human conception and birth were, for all intents and purposes, completely happenstantial.
However, humans, as it turns out, are a completely contrarian species. We have survived and thrived by overcoming and redirecting the constraints of nature, and the physical laws that govern our universe. We (most of us) call that progress.
The question is: can we survive as contrarian species, and if so would we also be able to 'eliminate' the 'outliers' who do not conform to the "morality" of human dignity and equality? or would we find a way to live with some level of outliers in order to retain the diversity that could one day save us from some unexpected challenge from nature?
Christians (fundie, conservative, evangelical) lost their legitimacy when they stopped being "Christians" of the New Testament and became "Christians" of the Old Testament, in short, some radical hybrid of an ancient Jew and a 1920's Bible-thumper.
It's as if without all the OT drama that NT Christians can't make it on their own. Call them out on their reliance on the OT and point out that Jesus said, "The old law is dead in me" and you'll be facing a very nasty critter, furious that you popped their balloon. They need the drama and First-century asceticism doesn't cut it for them. (Pun intended.)
It's as if without all the OT drama that NT Christians can't make it on their own. Call them out on their reliance on the OT and point out that Jesus said, "The old law is dead in me" and you'll be facing a very nasty critter, furious that you popped their balloon. They need the drama and First-century asceticism doesn't cut it for them. (Pun intended.)
4
With respect Rosa, what are you talking about? The Old Testament is all about pointing us toward Jesus. Jesus came to free us from the law and into an era of grace, but by no means is sin OK? Might I refer you to 1 Cor 6:9-11. Frankly, you statement shows a Biblical ignorance.
1
Nice wish David, but alas too many ‘Good Christians’ are consumed with racism, bigotry and hate. Which seem to be the overt defining characteristics’ of religions around the globe.
3
If Professor George is the most brilliant social theorist Brooks claims, then conservative thought is irrelevant to say nothing of its intellectual cowardice. In recent years there have been a number of opportunities for him to have made his case during judicial hearings, such as in California on the proposition eight hearing and more recently in court hearings in Michigan. Of course, testimony against same-sex marriage is subjected to cross-examination. In both courts the critics of same-sex union were revealed to be intellectual fools. Regnerus, a sociologist, who claimed his study found that children in same-sex unions were disadvantaged found his study being thrown out of court. Professor George, rather than testify himself, sent his co-author, who, because he was nothing more than a graduate student, saw himself dismissed, for the reason that he was no expert on marriage. As a number of commentators have noted that from the very beginning the opponents of same-sex unions made their case solely on religious grounds. What the court's ruling demonstrates is that lawmakers can no longer burden basic rights on purely religious grounds (Cf Religion & Politics); add to that the research purporting to demonstrate secular grounds was at best slovenly and nonsensical. If the best the conservatives can do is to rely on the dissent by Thomas, a justice who doesn't know that his legal theories are buried in the graves of the Civil War, they are a spent force.
3
All society needs is a flowering of humanism and the Golden Rule. Christianity is hopelessly burdened by complicated and conflicting notions of morality and theology. The most twisted and opaque definitions of right and wrong will not be the most successful ones. (Prohibiting comdoms, going to war to fight Muslims, serving the interests of billionaires - please explain one more time how these are related to the teachings of Jesus.) Fundamentalists can only put roadblocks to societal healing and create unnecessary drama. Best to keep it simple.
3
I know many ex-Christians whose values are much closer to the ideals of Jesus than the sex-obsessed religious right. They have healthy attitudes toward sex, do not fear those whose practices differ from the norm, but who are caring people, interested in righting social wrongs, alleviating poverty and helping their fellow humans. Above all, they are free of dogma. They do not obsess on whether they are going to heaven, because the concept of heaven is too vague and too constricting to be relevant.
5
So sorry Mr. Brooks, but hypocritical Christianity is being shown the door. True Christianity is taking it's place. Jesus did not discriminate against anyone but as soon as He was crucified the lies began. After more than 2000 years we are going to try to restore HIS message and beliefs. So called "Orthodox" Christianity is hateful, ugly and out of touch.
3
A couple scattered thoughts:
On the one hand, I've always found the fixation of today's Christians on sexual morality to be perplexing. If one were to pick up the New Testament cold and just start reading, sexual morality is hardly the most central issue of the texts. Rather, the message is relentlessly that we should be orienting ourselves not towards worldly goods but towards spiritual goods: store up treasure in Heaven, not down here.
On the other hand, it's not that perplexing, because it's a lot easier to take a stand on sexual morality than it is to live a life thoroughly oriented toward the spiritual. Having the "right" views on abortion, premarital sex, and gay marriage doesn't ask much of us, especially when failing to live up to these views is accepted so readily. (The thing is to *have* the views, not to live by them, as we have seen demonstrated so many times by Church leaders.) On the other hand, giving away all you have and following Christ, that's hard.
Especially when Christianity has allied itself so thoroughly with capitalism, in even its harshest and least humanizing forms. Read the countless passages from the NT about the ways wealth gets in the way of Christian spirituality, and watch the Health and Wealth theologians squirm. I don't hold it against sincere conservatives that they hold out on sexual issues, provided they respective democratic decision-making. But their own religion calls upon them to revisit their economic commitments.
On the one hand, I've always found the fixation of today's Christians on sexual morality to be perplexing. If one were to pick up the New Testament cold and just start reading, sexual morality is hardly the most central issue of the texts. Rather, the message is relentlessly that we should be orienting ourselves not towards worldly goods but towards spiritual goods: store up treasure in Heaven, not down here.
On the other hand, it's not that perplexing, because it's a lot easier to take a stand on sexual morality than it is to live a life thoroughly oriented toward the spiritual. Having the "right" views on abortion, premarital sex, and gay marriage doesn't ask much of us, especially when failing to live up to these views is accepted so readily. (The thing is to *have* the views, not to live by them, as we have seen demonstrated so many times by Church leaders.) On the other hand, giving away all you have and following Christ, that's hard.
Especially when Christianity has allied itself so thoroughly with capitalism, in even its harshest and least humanizing forms. Read the countless passages from the NT about the ways wealth gets in the way of Christian spirituality, and watch the Health and Wealth theologians squirm. I don't hold it against sincere conservatives that they hold out on sexual issues, provided they respective democratic decision-making. But their own religion calls upon them to revisit their economic commitments.
3
The following two paragraphs describe a person who has not lived in the same country that I have over the past 30 or so years.
David - "Social conservatives could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love. They can serve as examples of commitment. They are equipped with a vocabulary to distinguish right from wrong, what dignifies and what demeans. They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely.
The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other. Those are the people who converse with us about the transcendent in everyday life."
If these things had been happening in the conservative world, instead of the hateful name calling and marginalization of the poor, there never would have been the need for a culture war in the first place.
David - "Social conservatives could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love. They can serve as examples of commitment. They are equipped with a vocabulary to distinguish right from wrong, what dignifies and what demeans. They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely.
The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other. Those are the people who converse with us about the transcendent in everyday life."
If these things had been happening in the conservative world, instead of the hateful name calling and marginalization of the poor, there never would have been the need for a culture war in the first place.
4
The left's obsession with not being subject to a religious doctrine is just silly. Call it what you will, the rules are just another name for rules of living and morality. The left just doesn't happen to agree with the rules. They have their own rules. And thus the fight.
This argument isn't about religion vs. non-religion, its just about what set of rules should we all agree to live by. Religion has prohibitions against murder, but just because that prohibition is written in the Bible doesn't make the prohibition bad. We all agree the murder is bad.
My objections to no fault divorce, promiscuity, out of wedlock parenting, etc. etc. are not religious based at all. And my objections to them are not me forcing my religion on someone else. I just happen to think that those practices are not good for individuals and our society, are not beneficial to the greater good and should be socially sanctioned.
You may feel free to disagree with me, but don't blame religion. I will do what I can by voting, educating my children and others. And you may do the same. In the end, all of us will be dead and it will be up to our progeny to sort out whatever mess we left them.
I suspect that the world in 100 years will be far different than any of us anticipate. We may be pets for AI and all this will be moot. LOL
This argument isn't about religion vs. non-religion, its just about what set of rules should we all agree to live by. Religion has prohibitions against murder, but just because that prohibition is written in the Bible doesn't make the prohibition bad. We all agree the murder is bad.
My objections to no fault divorce, promiscuity, out of wedlock parenting, etc. etc. are not religious based at all. And my objections to them are not me forcing my religion on someone else. I just happen to think that those practices are not good for individuals and our society, are not beneficial to the greater good and should be socially sanctioned.
You may feel free to disagree with me, but don't blame religion. I will do what I can by voting, educating my children and others. And you may do the same. In the end, all of us will be dead and it will be up to our progeny to sort out whatever mess we left them.
I suspect that the world in 100 years will be far different than any of us anticipate. We may be pets for AI and all this will be moot. LOL
2
For some reason it has become a truism that religious or faith-based judgements are somehow more noble or more deserving of respect than any other kind of judgement or decision. Why should this be so? Why is the freedom to express a religious belief or a religious practice more in need of protection or respect than any other kind of belief or practice? Personally, I don't think it is.
In fact, I think the very REASON we have a secular society is so that religions with competing claims and beliefs (or indeed sects within "a religion") can co-exist, without some kind of government institution adjudicating. Instead, we enforce a set of secular rules based on principles enshrined in our constitution. As long as religions operate within those bounds, they are fine. If they violate them (hey, we'd like to sacrifice a virgin!) then they are against the law. I don't really see the problem with that.
Often times, the "freedom" the religious people seem to want is the freedom to make everyone else conform to their religion.
In fact, I think the very REASON we have a secular society is so that religions with competing claims and beliefs (or indeed sects within "a religion") can co-exist, without some kind of government institution adjudicating. Instead, we enforce a set of secular rules based on principles enshrined in our constitution. As long as religions operate within those bounds, they are fine. If they violate them (hey, we'd like to sacrifice a virgin!) then they are against the law. I don't really see the problem with that.
Often times, the "freedom" the religious people seem to want is the freedom to make everyone else conform to their religion.
11
"Often times, the "freedom" the religious people seem to want is the freedom to make everyone else conform to their religion."
Exactly so.
Exactly so.
Would not churches which strive to include rather then exclude over doctrinal differences offer more to our diverse culture? Some place it is said "..there are many rooms in the house of the holy one.."
2
' "..there are many rooms in the house of the holy one.."'
A more accurate translation is: "In My Father's house there are many mansions".
A more accurate translation is: "In My Father's house there are many mansions".
"They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love."
When it comes to the vicious reaction from the Christian Right to the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, it's only right to respond (with apologies to Tina Tyrner), "What's love got to do with it?"
When it comes to the vicious reaction from the Christian Right to the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, it's only right to respond (with apologies to Tina Tyrner), "What's love got to do with it?"
3
"Vicious Reaction"? What world do you call home? Seriously, could you cite just ONE example of a "vicious" reaction by Christians....I saw a lot of sadness and disappointment, but maybe I missed all the riots, and police cars burning n the streets....Seriously, the Liberal mindset is breathtakingly absurd.
David, I've said for years in these comments that conservative Christians and their alliance with the GOP is poisoning the faith and could destroy its practice in the US. Conservative Christians are learning the wrong lesson from their treatment: they think they need to retreat from the public sphere until the public comes around.
We aren't coming around. If conservative Christians would abandon the GOP and seize Christ's message fearlessly, they would find the world is ready to head that direction. They could lead the charge to truth, justice, fairness, and creation care. They could be in front! But instead they choose to take their marbles and go home. I truly do not get it.
We aren't coming around. If conservative Christians would abandon the GOP and seize Christ's message fearlessly, they would find the world is ready to head that direction. They could lead the charge to truth, justice, fairness, and creation care. They could be in front! But instead they choose to take their marbles and go home. I truly do not get it.
3
You admire these people? Honestly?
What is wrong with you?
What is wrong with you?
6
It has gotten so that each week I look forward to the comments that use Brooks' columns as their own personal Rorschach blot as I do to his columns itself.
As his writing has strayed further and further from politics, Brooks has brought some interesting thinking to play. If one skips the temptation to to nit-pick the questionable or to make unwarranted assumptions from his past or even (assumed) present political positions, there is much food for thought in much of what he says.
Reading Brooks as a cunning front man for the Manichean devil of the Right-wing pantheon, simply cheats the reader, at the same time reducing him or her to the same, sneaky, defensive, close-minded status Brooks is accused of.
As his writing has strayed further and further from politics, Brooks has brought some interesting thinking to play. If one skips the temptation to to nit-pick the questionable or to make unwarranted assumptions from his past or even (assumed) present political positions, there is much food for thought in much of what he says.
Reading Brooks as a cunning front man for the Manichean devil of the Right-wing pantheon, simply cheats the reader, at the same time reducing him or her to the same, sneaky, defensive, close-minded status Brooks is accused of.
2
I'm troubled by the resentment and vitriol on both sides. I attend a catholic church, I support gay marriage and fundamental equal protection for all. Many of my fellow congregants do too. My parish is open to all - it has an outreach program to specifically welcome gay congregants; it has an active environmental "green" mission; most importantly, it supports vast ministries for the poor. That enables me and my family to directly assist those most in need. It fosters the translation of Love into good deeds. We could not have such an impact for good without our collective efforts through the church. While we disagree with many of the Vatican's positions, we try to affect change in our parish from within. Those who cast all christians as bigots are bigoted themselves.
1
Would there be more like you and fewer of the christian sheeple that stand for little and against so much. Many of us former christians just can't relate to the social hate and anger we see in our churches. Today's churches do a poor job delivering Christ's message-internally or externally. Most "church goers" I meet today, go to church "for the children," to experience "a community of like-minded people," or out of habit and peer pressure.
But, like it or not, your parish, like all others, is guided by the rulings of the Vatican. You may choose to ignore them, but they exist and are the fundamental teaching and guidance of the Catholic church. Like it or not, the Pope is the head of your church. His influence is wide. What he says, goes. You may "try to affect change in [your] parish from within", but your efforts are largely wasted. You and your fellow parishioners are only fooling yourselves if you think you have somehow escaped from the Pope and the fundamental beliefs of the Catholic religion.
There is nothing unfortunate about a decline in Christianity. It is one of 1000s of religions that has tried to be a catalyst for greater social morality, and it has had its successes. Why is Brooks afraid? Because like most people, as he ages, his mind becomes ever less capable of changing it's fundamental beliefs, and he believes in a Christian God and can't conceptualise a world without Him. It is good that more and more young people are turning to a morality based not on religion, but on the innate desire to preserve and protect not only themselves, but their communities and their world. It is good to protect all religions and beliefs, but not when a religion threatens to stop global moral progress. Christianity may be innocent; America's social conservative Christians are a threat to the common good.
3
I have never met a social conservative who gave a darn about love, grace, communion, or those who are less fortunate. And I have met many. Social conservatives care about money, power, keeping "those people" (the poor, the minorities, the gays, the hippies, etc.) away from them and their children, and about judging others.
This country does not need more influence from social conservatives. Speaking for myself and my family, we stay away from them because they have, in our experience, proven almost always to be unpleasant and, yes, hypocritical people.
This country does not need more influence from social conservatives. Speaking for myself and my family, we stay away from them because they have, in our experience, proven almost always to be unpleasant and, yes, hypocritical people.
9
Real Christianity seems to be on the rise.
My gauge?
The Golden Rule appears to be in ascendance.
My gauge?
The Golden Rule appears to be in ascendance.
2
David, thank you for tenaciously defending American Evangelical conservatives. They are an interesting bunch: strong believers in "grace" and "love" but hateful towards President Obama and other Democrats; segregated life style in the US, but literally wash the feet of poor black people abroad; looking forward to their "true home" in heaven, but violently loyal--to the point of killing and dying--of their earthly country, USA. I, for one, love them and am *grateful* for them. (I am a non-American, non-conservative Evangelical Christian.) There is something unshakable and redeeming about them, notwithstanding their contradictions. In many ways, they are an expression of the best of the human condition: a fierce but limited view, an ever reaching for more and more light. Without them, the world would be much more "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," to quote Mr. Hobbes. -Pearl
Mr. Brooks advocates for Christians and conservatives to "drop their obsession with sex".
They can't. They are like the proverbial scorpion crossing the river on the back of a toad and biting the toad half way through, and thus drowning the toad and himself in the process. When asked by the toad why he did such an idiotic thing, he replied: I can't help it, it's in my nature.
Conservatives and Christians think, live, dream, and die thinking of sex. It's in their nature.
They can't. They are like the proverbial scorpion crossing the river on the back of a toad and biting the toad half way through, and thus drowning the toad and himself in the process. When asked by the toad why he did such an idiotic thing, he replied: I can't help it, it's in my nature.
Conservatives and Christians think, live, dream, and die thinking of sex. It's in their nature.
1
Best column yet! Pope Francis came to us with this message. He does not want the church to obsess over sexual matters. Christ did not. His basic message was one of love. I have heard young people saying that this Pope is concerned about drawing us all closer to each other and to God. The message resonates with them. It is no wonder that he has proven to be so popular.
1
There are many people who would not claim that they are either religious or of any particular faith. However, they have a set of values, moral standards and they live their lives accordingly. They give to charity not because they expect some good benefit in a later life, but because they have compassion for the ones who receive that charity.
They offer their services to organizations, do volunteer work often for reasons that have nothing to do with "being good" but even for something as mundane as "having something to do besides sitting".
That doesn't mean that they are faith-less people, but it might be that they put their faith in the hope that things will get better and they act accordingly.
They offer their services to organizations, do volunteer work often for reasons that have nothing to do with "being good" but even for something as mundane as "having something to do besides sitting".
That doesn't mean that they are faith-less people, but it might be that they put their faith in the hope that things will get better and they act accordingly.
2
And, in addition, they hope that they will make society a better place to live, for everyone, including themselves. Values do not come from religion, despite what most religions seem to teach. One of the best and clearest voices regarding ethics and values was Socrates.
Belief systems and the language needed to integrate one's ethics and morality within the world are shifting indeed. Think of all the kids in our G7/8/9 cultures that grow up trained only the quotidian materialism of economic survival and its rewards. The market place is the invisible hand of God. A materialistic belief system without any responsibility to our fellow human beings.
Midrash, the ability to interpret our traditions for a contemporary society, I believe, is the only way to save religion from itself. Christianity is locked in a archaic defilement of what Jesus taught us. Something I think Conservatives need to consider for the benefit of their souls.
There is no one Christian Church view about social redemption. It's mercy and love which is required of us all.
Midrash, the ability to interpret our traditions for a contemporary society, I believe, is the only way to save religion from itself. Christianity is locked in a archaic defilement of what Jesus taught us. Something I think Conservatives need to consider for the benefit of their souls.
There is no one Christian Church view about social redemption. It's mercy and love which is required of us all.
1
Robert P. George, probably the most brilliant social conservative theorist in the country, argued that just as Lincoln persistently rejected the Dred Scott decision, so “we must reject and resist an egregious act of judicial usurpation.”
With that, Brooks compares same-sex marriage to slavery.
Slavery is an abomination and nobody can defend human bondage and cruelty as anything other than wrong. The country rejected slavery for what it is - a grave injustice and WRONG.
Gay marriage is about two people who love each other and want to share in society's blessing of marriage. The country is accepting of it and we know that gays are not really different than straight folks - only in sexual preference, really.
Shame on Brooks. Shame on anyone printing something like that and defending it with sweet words when the message is so ugly.
With that, Brooks compares same-sex marriage to slavery.
Slavery is an abomination and nobody can defend human bondage and cruelty as anything other than wrong. The country rejected slavery for what it is - a grave injustice and WRONG.
Gay marriage is about two people who love each other and want to share in society's blessing of marriage. The country is accepting of it and we know that gays are not really different than straight folks - only in sexual preference, really.
Shame on Brooks. Shame on anyone printing something like that and defending it with sweet words when the message is so ugly.
2
Or: maybe America is just becoming a more complex society in its continuing modern advancement and will necessarily become more hospitable to and accepting of its members who are committed to reason, knowledge, and enlightenment over those who are committed to ancient and divisive superstitions. Just a thought.
1
Modern Christianity is based on fear of the unknown and its obdurateness results in sclerosis, and there's the problem. David, dont be afraid of change. The irony is that Christianity (and all fundamentalism), in its quest to heal, is in fact hurting this country and wherever else it has a sway on people.
Mankind is evolving, yet instead of understanding the inevitability Christians (all fundamental religious beliefs) create friction. Their inflexibility, fear of change and just plain narcissism is the cause of so many problems of the world.
While there is much good in the Bible, it is ultimately a book written by Bronze Age men that reflects their reactions to their (flat!) world based on an ignorance of science, as well as an attempt to keep the status quo of a society based on tribal laws and lore.
Yes, I regret a lot of changes in society in just my 71 years of life, but to cling to the "good old days" is basically useless. David, you seem to want to cluck about the changes, cling to his values and write about it in his column instead of bravely facing the inevitable and trying to glean what's positive from the result of mankind's trip to the future.
I regret a 10 cent subway ride and the "Make-Believe Ballroom" show on radio, but what about the racism (lynchings!), institutionalized antisemitism, not to mention anti-Catholicism, the lack of options open to women, believing homosexuality a disease and the conformity at all cost, all rationalized in the Bible?
Mankind is evolving, yet instead of understanding the inevitability Christians (all fundamental religious beliefs) create friction. Their inflexibility, fear of change and just plain narcissism is the cause of so many problems of the world.
While there is much good in the Bible, it is ultimately a book written by Bronze Age men that reflects their reactions to their (flat!) world based on an ignorance of science, as well as an attempt to keep the status quo of a society based on tribal laws and lore.
Yes, I regret a lot of changes in society in just my 71 years of life, but to cling to the "good old days" is basically useless. David, you seem to want to cluck about the changes, cling to his values and write about it in his column instead of bravely facing the inevitable and trying to glean what's positive from the result of mankind's trip to the future.
I regret a 10 cent subway ride and the "Make-Believe Ballroom" show on radio, but what about the racism (lynchings!), institutionalized antisemitism, not to mention anti-Catholicism, the lack of options open to women, believing homosexuality a disease and the conformity at all cost, all rationalized in the Bible?
1
In other words, "social conservatives" should listen to and follow the teachings of Jesus: practice loving and acceptance of strangers, feed and clothe the poor, minister to the sick, avoid judging others, and love their neighbors. What a great philosophy! There's a term for that type of person:
Progressive
Progressive
5
Correction the term for that type of person in the Democratic party is: Non-existent.
1
I don't see any mention of the words "Democratic party" in my post. Even a first year law student knows better than to put words into other people's mouths.
1
Mr. Brooks, you should get out to flyover country a bit more often, where you will find the vast majority of citizens practicing the exact form of "Christianity" that you suggest. They don't behead cartoonists, bomb abortion clinics, and they don't go out rioting and looting at every perceived offense. Westboro Baptist Church doesn't represent what they are about any more than the far-left kook fringe represents you.
Who and what do you believe tore at the sinews of society that you suggest be re-woven? It certainly wasn't torn by the members of flyover country. There are many good and "common norms" throughout flyover country, despite the best efforts of Norman Lear and company to the contrary.
Flyover country is filled with good and tolerant people. That toleration has been rewarded with a relentless onslaught of the Left's "good intentions". The miracle to me is just how much genuine goodness remains in the vast but relatively silent majority out here in flyover land.
Who and what do you believe tore at the sinews of society that you suggest be re-woven? It certainly wasn't torn by the members of flyover country. There are many good and "common norms" throughout flyover country, despite the best efforts of Norman Lear and company to the contrary.
Flyover country is filled with good and tolerant people. That toleration has been rewarded with a relentless onslaught of the Left's "good intentions". The miracle to me is just how much genuine goodness remains in the vast but relatively silent majority out here in flyover land.
Perhaps Christianity is declining in this country because it has devolved into a fetid swamp of obsession with other people's genitalia by those who cannot keep their own under control. No one thinks "charity" or "taking care of the less fortunate" or "doing for others" when one thinks of Christianity. Today when the word "Christian" is uttered, we think of huckster megachurch preachers with mistresses, anti-gay preachers and politicians who go on the down-low looking for men to have sex with. We think of politicians who have twisted Christianity and Ayn Rand Objectivism together into a nightmare of greed and moral judgment.
I know more than a few millenials, and they are good-hearted kids who just want to make a better world. They grew up in a world of lies and cut their teeth on "The Daily Show." They know horsepuckey when they see it, and today's so-called "Christians" are selling just that. Why would they want to be part of it?
I know more than a few millenials, and they are good-hearted kids who just want to make a better world. They grew up in a world of lies and cut their teeth on "The Daily Show." They know horsepuckey when they see it, and today's so-called "Christians" are selling just that. Why would they want to be part of it?
4
There are, of course, many of us who are practicing Christians and attend churches which welcome change, open their doors to LGBT's, and take Christianity as a challenge to do better the job we are given of loving our neighbor. We tend, however, to be drowned out by the howling of fundamentalists who cling to the blame game, rather than the mission, types who threaten to burn themselves to death if marriage equality goes through, who blame marriage equality on the Jews, and bad weather on the gays. If Christianity is to find and traction in America, with its diversity and its problems, it needs to put itself on the line to welcome the stranger, feed the hungry, and pass on the love and compassion of its Founder - not threaten, blame, renounce science and embrace ignorance, spread lies, fear, hate and division. That version of Christianity needs to disappear, and the sooner the better.
4
Evangelical Christians may be a small percentage of American Protestants but they are screamers and have been wrecking our politics for close to 30 years. You can't understand the American Constitution as a citizen or politician if you openly claim God is on your side. Yes, there is a native backlash to modern life in rural parts of America just as there is in every culture and country in the world. Don't confuse that with "loss of Christian or old-time moral values"! But you are indeed again, subtly, apologizing for the Tea Party and all the crazy right wing activists who have been insultingly "claiming their country back" since Obama was elected. What color is our president? Do you know or listen to any of these Evangelical Christians? Some of us want both our Country and our Jesus back!
1
Neither Christians or christianity are under attack in America or anywhere in the world. Religion trying to dictate how the rest of us live is under attack and rightly so. WE believe in that separation of church and state protects us FROM religious interference in how we live our lives as well as protection for all religions to exist and all people to worship or not in any way they choose. That is what has made America great and the "christian" attempt to run OUR governments and lives is what is trying to destroy democracy in America and around the world. WE can control ourselves, thank you. We don't need the pope or any other religious leader controlling how we live.
4
I observe with interest Brooks' thoughtful conservatism on Friday evenings on the PBS stage he shares with liberal Mark Shields. Brooks is a worthy successor to Paul Gigot. Brooks frequently offers a perspective that might actually save the GOP from itself as a national party, and in this op-ed he provides a roadmap through which conservative Christianity might save itself in this country. Unfortunately, too few GOP candidates and Christian "leaders" seem to be listening. As the nation becomes more diverse and more tolerant, the social conservatives are voluntarily segregating themselves. Jesus would not refuse to decorate a cake for a SSM wedding but would serve a slice to all who sought to attend,
1
One of the most important functions of the separation of church and state is to protect religion. Religion should be, first and foremost, a guide to how each of us lives our lives. When it takes stands on issues of public policy, it becomes exclusive -- "love me, love my views on who is allowed to marry." If evangelical Christianity continues to make same-sex marriage a litmus test, it will cease to attract the young people it hopes to guide. It will become the religion of the old. Instead of a Church Militant, we need a Church Relevant.
1
Orrrr...perhaps, Mr. Brooks, self-identified Christians tire of being wrongfully presumed "pro-life" and "anti-gay" zealots merely because they believe in traditional Christian tolerance and love. Maybe they just aren't interested in sticking their noses in other people's business. Shrug...
1
What does it mean that Lincoln did not accept the Dred Scott decision? The Scott decision was terribly decided on the basis not of religion but on the basis of a reasonable reading of the Constitution. Regardless, whatever Robert P. George means it is not a coherent position. South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumpter and the South seceded. Lincoln had no reason to honor the decision of the Taney Court. Are Christians or 'social conservatives" expecting the majority to secede?
David, regarding social conservatives, you write "They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely." If they do that in private, how do you know?
3
As Jeremy England has shown, grouped formations are more efficient than lone entities. Christianity is merely one organizing structure. But like all grouped entities, the larger unit is so good at amassing resources that it will maintain itself even in an ecosystem that is hostile to it. Religions will persist as an easy mechanism for group identification. Group identification with Christianity has paid off for 1200 years. But just like the Egyptians, whose religion lasted twice as long, the world at large is finding the Christians' organizing principles obsolete. Unless an entity proves more successful at negotiating the real world, it will die out. Diplodocus was not able to survive once its environment changed. Global communication, mass education and mass movements are far more powerful means of directing our social evolution. Religions may exist for a while longer, and may leave big and bloody messes as they implode, but as a species we have outgrown them.
Evangelical Christianity of the type associated with right-wing conservatism is losing traction because of hypocrisy, pure and simple. These are the people who preach to the rest of us about morality while supporting the morally indefensible. They are militantly against abortion, but don't seem to care about disadvantaged children once they are born. They blur the line between church and state, cheering on stupid wars that demean America's standing in the world while bitterly dividing our country here at home. Through their support of right-wing politicians, they further the cause of oligarchy and corporatism, and add to the suffering of the poor and marginalized. And with all of their self-righteous posturing, they deny the most important moral issue of our time: global warming. To the rest of the world, these people are practitioners of selective morality: they cherry-pick moral issues that fit into the right-wing Republican political agenda, and conveniently ignore the rest. In short, they are what Jesus called "wolves in sheep's clothing." That is why they are so threatened by the genuine moral courage and forthrightness of Christian exemplars like Pope Francis.
1
"Christianity's gravest setbacks are in the realm of values." No, actually the values (loves, compassion, inclusion) are doing just fine. The gravest setbacks are due to pedofile priests, opposition to birth control, anti-women practices, and a sanctimonious judgementalism that condemns and demonizes "others" who they do not know or understand.
As for social conservatives subscribing to "a faith built on selfless love"... And "serving as "messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion, and grace." You have got to be kidding. Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Ted Cruz: selfless love? Dignity? Liberals have been promoting and living these values for decades. Welcome to Woodstock.
As for social conservatives subscribing to "a faith built on selfless love"... And "serving as "messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion, and grace." You have got to be kidding. Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Ted Cruz: selfless love? Dignity? Liberals have been promoting and living these values for decades. Welcome to Woodstock.
5
I couldn't agree more that we need more "love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace." But those attributes need nurturing throughout society, not just social conservatives. Unfortunately, we in North America have become greedy, uncaring, retributive and vindictive over the past three to four decades. Although I am gay, I find the partisan and special interest politics have more harm than good in the last half century.
I say this particularly about the plight of men. Prison, racism, violence, murder, homelessness, homophobia, mental illness, suicide, reproductive rights, workplace injuries and death, military deaths, parental bias, failing our veterans failing education, lack of compassion, degradation, dehumanization, etc., are all overwhelmingly male experiences of gender injustice. Yet because of a relatively small elite at the top of the male hierarchy, we virtually ignore these issues.
I say this particularly about the plight of men. Prison, racism, violence, murder, homelessness, homophobia, mental illness, suicide, reproductive rights, workplace injuries and death, military deaths, parental bias, failing our veterans failing education, lack of compassion, degradation, dehumanization, etc., are all overwhelmingly male experiences of gender injustice. Yet because of a relatively small elite at the top of the male hierarchy, we virtually ignore these issues.
1
As an evangelist/fundamentalist , [yet never have listened to TV preachers], I appreciate the 'shout' out from Mr Brooks. I do wish that the vicious critics would actually get to know a Conservative Christian...and not be so judgmental, or better yet, pick up a bible, and actually see what it says for themselves. I challenge a non believer to find any fault. Being a Christian is about dying to self, (something the World could try), and recognizing our lowly position in regard to the most Holy God. It pains us greatly to see God's intent being trampled by our once great country. We are sad. We are not vindictive, nor do we seek retribution. Peaceful, quiet Christians will continue to worship their God, continue to minister to the weak, & poor (which is us), continue to encourage the Brethren, and continue to look up. We won't retreat, there is no place to go. We will continue to find places to serve-- earthquakes, famine, floods, droughts, are with us to stay. We are already there. We just don't make a big deal about it. We are in the prisons, in the homeless shelters, rehab centers, in the ghetto, in the hospice care, & in Beverly Hills too. We are having the time of our lives, we love talking about Jesus with God's family, it's always a party. We have Joy, Hope, and Peace. ... All our welcome.
2
A well-reasoned piece, as always. My one argument is Mr. Brooks' equating "social conservative" with "Christian," an erroneous generalization and assumption that far too many people leap to. I am a Christian (an Episcopalian), and I believe firmly that, for example, offering the dignity of equal marriage rights to gay people accords completely with Christian principals and values. To me, the homophobes are the ones who are un-Christian, and they do not speak for me. Christianity is infinitely complex and multidimensional; it is much more than the narrow, cartoon faith of a Jerry Falwell. Our society has permitted the right to appropriate the term "Christian," and Mr. Brooks is helping them do that. I would like for the rest of us to take it back.
3
There seem to b a few rules for this type of discussion, so for the benefit of those who might wish to post their thoughts here, it may be helpful to review them. Always:
Concatenate the beliefs of a few weirdos on either side of the discussion With the rich and varied beliefs of their adherents. (The flat earth arguments)
Reduce the dignity on your philosophical opponent with tenuous connections to a polar opposite (opposition to abortion or gay marriage equals hatred)
Always, always constitute your arguments along a reductio ab adsurdum style of discussion (see above)
If that fails redefine the argument with an ad hominum attack (those people are hateful and stupid)
And failing that use a personal story, however provable, to artificially weave your experience into a common world view (I used to be a ....... But now.....)
Always, always use broad brush strokes to repaint the beliefs of your opponents
Never under any circumstances shall you meet in person the type of individual you vilify and engage in face to face discussions (the beauty of the internet)
If we can follow these few simple rules I am sure we can come to some kind of reasonable agreement to these problems.
Concatenate the beliefs of a few weirdos on either side of the discussion With the rich and varied beliefs of their adherents. (The flat earth arguments)
Reduce the dignity on your philosophical opponent with tenuous connections to a polar opposite (opposition to abortion or gay marriage equals hatred)
Always, always constitute your arguments along a reductio ab adsurdum style of discussion (see above)
If that fails redefine the argument with an ad hominum attack (those people are hateful and stupid)
And failing that use a personal story, however provable, to artificially weave your experience into a common world view (I used to be a ....... But now.....)
Always, always use broad brush strokes to repaint the beliefs of your opponents
Never under any circumstances shall you meet in person the type of individual you vilify and engage in face to face discussions (the beauty of the internet)
If we can follow these few simple rules I am sure we can come to some kind of reasonable agreement to these problems.
1
Rod Dreher....argued it's time for Christians to... retreat into their own communities, where they could keep “the light of faith burning through the surrounding cultural darkness.”' I find this remark rather amazing given that the Church was responsible for the "Dark Ages", a period of repressive ideology squashing all new ideas. It is truly remarkable that, after 500 years, organized religions are still fighting the Enlightenment.
Secular laws and social support systems are necessary because"voluntary" support efforts are available only to "worthy people" or are typically linked to aggressive conversion tactics.
Secular laws and social support systems are necessary because"voluntary" support efforts are available only to "worthy people" or are typically linked to aggressive conversion tactics.
2
Actually, the "church" wasn't responsible for the collapse of "civilization." They were, however, VERY much responsible for the retardation of the reemergence of civilization once the "dark" ages passed, and stopped at nothing to retain control over everyone and everything. The plague set back the reemergence of civilization at least 100 years, and the church was more than accommodating to that tragedy, using it to their advantage to maintain their control. It was not until the 18th century, and then even not so much, that they were finally thrust out of secular life.
1
Something happened in the 1960s that changed the world. What drove the hippie movement was the concept that love really is the answer. This very simple concept was the basis of Jesus' teachings - not the hatred and exclusion spewed from "Christian" pulpits throughout this country in His name. Jesus was inclusive - his love for Mary Magdelene, a prostitute, washing the feet of lepers - and on and on. Jesus loved his neighbor as Himself and urged us all to do so. Even if that neighbor was gay. Can we not just stop the hate and exclusion and follow His example? We are ALL differently wired children of one loving God.
2
Brooks vastly mischaracterizes many of the loudest Christian voices, particularly the politically active ones. These so-called evangelicals are not interested in grace and compassion towards others, but rather, approach society with political ambitions to force their beliefs on others, regardless the cost or actual outcome, and regardless of factual or empirical evidence on the substantive issue. In short, we have a meglomaniac version of evangelical Christianity in our nation that has wandered far from the teachings of Pope Francis, whom they openly regard as troublesome and pesky.
1
True Christians embrace love, marriage, generosity, and non-judgmentalism. Anyone who opposes the rights of gay Christians to marry but supports the rights of heterosexuals is not a Christian at all. These fundamentalists who oppose marriage are NOT Christian. Most mainstream Christian churches now strongly support the rights of gay Christians to marry and serve as pastors, buy some Evangelical 'faux-Christian' fundamentalists accept their selfish bigotry and reject Christ's message of love. Their false Christianity will never succeed, because they are only using the pure name of Christ to try to justify their own sinful homophobia and misogyny.
2
Bravo. What Brooks proposes sounds like a secular version of the "field hospital" approach to the missiono of the catholic Church advanced by Pope Francis. If it is understood as a question of language, emphasis, priorities and a shift into social action, I strongly agree with this vision. It is what Benedict called "Caritas in veritate": charity in truth. Not truth without charity or without the works of charity; nor charity without truth, which would be mere sentimentalism, but not a healing force.
1
" Social conservatives are well equipped to repair this fabric, and to serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace."
How?
Social conservatives from the south have spent the last 150 years doing their best to insure second class citizenship on an entire race of people.
Social conservatives elsewhere have spent the last 75 years trying to undo the social justice of the New Deal. A commitment by Americans to take care of less fortunate Americans.
Social conservatives in the Catholic Church have spent the last 50-60 years raping little boys. While the social conservative bishops have turned a blind eye at best, and aided and abetted at worst.
Social conservatives in the republican party have been falling with remarkable regularity to the temptations of mistresses, hookers, pages, undercover cops in airports, and hosts of other "sins of the flesh".
Social conservatives have been turning their backs on the kinds of social work that include funding for poor children to eat and go to schools. They have been showing hatred and abuse on those who are most unfortunate in our societies, be they poor or sinners. Quite unlike the Savior they profess to adore. Quite to the contrary of every message He uttered.
Social conservatives could spend less time wringing their hands about their loss of influence and power in the political ring and more time trying to understand the deep devout spirituality of people they think of as sinners.
How?
Social conservatives from the south have spent the last 150 years doing their best to insure second class citizenship on an entire race of people.
Social conservatives elsewhere have spent the last 75 years trying to undo the social justice of the New Deal. A commitment by Americans to take care of less fortunate Americans.
Social conservatives in the Catholic Church have spent the last 50-60 years raping little boys. While the social conservative bishops have turned a blind eye at best, and aided and abetted at worst.
Social conservatives in the republican party have been falling with remarkable regularity to the temptations of mistresses, hookers, pages, undercover cops in airports, and hosts of other "sins of the flesh".
Social conservatives have been turning their backs on the kinds of social work that include funding for poor children to eat and go to schools. They have been showing hatred and abuse on those who are most unfortunate in our societies, be they poor or sinners. Quite unlike the Savior they profess to adore. Quite to the contrary of every message He uttered.
Social conservatives could spend less time wringing their hands about their loss of influence and power in the political ring and more time trying to understand the deep devout spirituality of people they think of as sinners.
8
Being part of the Christian left, I know many Catholics and Catholic Workers who focus on social justice and basic Christian values such as working directly with the poor. Over the years of working to serve food and provide housing to the homeless, the only people who have criticized me have been folks on the "right", not athiests, not agnostics, not other Catholics (for that matter). Getting back to basics of helping our fellow humans in need is a core and timeless Christian value. It is really something we could all embrace.
3
I rarely disagree with Mr. Brooks; I find him to be a thoughtful, intelligent, and wise observer of the social and political events in our country. I make my own observations as a former church professional, as one who continues to care deeply about the witness of the Church. I believe that many of the developments cited by Mr. Brooks, particularly the long-overdue welcoming of the gay community of into our churches and our lives, could bring a renaissance to the Church. So many of the Church's positions, such as those on divorce and birth control, have rightly been seen as doctrines completely cut off from the real lives of the real human beings trying their best to be faithful. In the case of our gay neighbors, the church has rightly been seen to have condemned not just a particular behavior or decision, as with birth control, divorce, or premarital sex. Instead, the church has been seen to have condemned persons because of something that goes to the core of who they are--in essence, to have condemned persons for who they are, without regard to the fact that homosexuality harms no one, and is now recognized as a normal variant of human sexuality, present in many sectors of the animal kingdom. This stance has alienated untold thousands from our churches. So, my hope is that recent developments will force the Church, including my own beloved United Methodist Church, to reconsider its doctrines in the light of their effects on real, live human beings.
4
This issue with this op-ed is simple, it posits a failing morality but does little to back up that assertion. In reality people have fewer sex partners than they used to, more people are staying in committed in family strengthening relationships than they have for years, people are safer than they have ever been, ...
Just because gay marriage is allowed doesn't mean morality is on the decline. I think it's also relevant pointing out that many of the places experiencing many fo what you call the worse morality issues are in more religious communities. This isn't caussation I don't think but it does help show that the churches and religion aren't helping people move forward.
Just because gay marriage is allowed doesn't mean morality is on the decline. I think it's also relevant pointing out that many of the places experiencing many fo what you call the worse morality issues are in more religious communities. This isn't caussation I don't think but it does help show that the churches and religion aren't helping people move forward.
3
Perhaps the "us" and "them" mentality which pervades the religious/political mix, subsumed under the title of "culture war," is the barrier many do not seem able to climb over. Ignorance of others is the first step toward prejudice, and as long as politicians, with the support of powerful church leaders, find "us" and "them" wedges, not much is going to change. No one played this game better than Reagan and Jerry Falwell who demanded religious affiliation and pious mouthing as the litmus test for political suitability. One irony was that President Reagan did not attend church with any regularity claiming that his attendance would be disruptive, what with all the cameras and reports following him.
3
As a Christian -- a follower of Christ -- I must take exception to the assertion that a gay union is an unholy assault upon my faith. I believe the opposite: that marriage is the acknowledgement of a holy and eternal bond between two individuals, united by the love that Christ made manifest in this world.
Marriage is not about the right to enjoy physical intimacy or an overt relationship; it is not about the two forms of love -- "eros" and "philia" -- that are how we mortals tend to observe and measure human affection. Instead, marriage is the institution built around agape: God's love for us, and our love for one another -- the love to which the apostle Paul refers in his letter to the Corinthians.
"Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth." (1 Corinthians 13:6) What I and millions of other Christian Americans celebrated this weekend was the liberation of God's love from a sanctioned oppression that was perpetuated far too long by the fear and antipathy from which it sprang. Now, at last, love has won. Thanks be to God.
Marriage is not about the right to enjoy physical intimacy or an overt relationship; it is not about the two forms of love -- "eros" and "philia" -- that are how we mortals tend to observe and measure human affection. Instead, marriage is the institution built around agape: God's love for us, and our love for one another -- the love to which the apostle Paul refers in his letter to the Corinthians.
"Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth." (1 Corinthians 13:6) What I and millions of other Christian Americans celebrated this weekend was the liberation of God's love from a sanctioned oppression that was perpetuated far too long by the fear and antipathy from which it sprang. Now, at last, love has won. Thanks be to God.
8
Beautifully put, and spot on. God's love knows no bounds.
In an effort to shed some light in dark corners I offer these links to The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance that will provide the historical evolution on marriage from Genesis to now, the historical evolution of racism, sexism and homophobia and the historical definition of Christianity.
Maybe secular historical and even Biblical evolution can provide a better foundation for discussion than the words of those wanting only the affirmation of fellow believers.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mari.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/denomchg4.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm
Maybe secular historical and even Biblical evolution can provide a better foundation for discussion than the words of those wanting only the affirmation of fellow believers.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mari.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/denomchg4.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm
1
Just a casual observation based on a recent review of the available data (you have heard of that?) about children in foster care. It appears that the vast majority of children at risk of growing up without a loving family are the result of economic spillover from the incessant war on drugs and the social desire to incarcerate the mostly nonviolent offenders this war targets.
Could it be that the social malaise that you and your esteemed evangelicals are now complaining about is but a manifestation of your antisocial agenda?
Could it be that the social malaise that you and your esteemed evangelicals are now complaining about is but a manifestation of your antisocial agenda?
4
What Mr. Brooks fails to mention is that the Christian "value" debunked by the Supreme Court is the hatred and marginilization of homosexuals (that hatred often couched by pastors in a smarmy and ridiculous doublespeak.) Therefore, I don't see just why the ever moral Mr. Brooks is an admirer of this crowd of immoral hypocrites.
2
Instead of spewing vitriol against same-sex marriage and complaining about the infringement of their religious freedoms, evangelical Christians should emulate the grace and humility displayed by the families of the victims of the Emmanuel AME shootings who, rather than calling for vengeance, offered forgiveness to the murderer of their loved ones. If I ever decided to join a church, it would be one with parishioners like them.
5
You are in denial over the extent to which the so-called "familly" values that many (certainly not all) Christians have emphasized over the last 50 years are intended to shame and marginalize those very same poor people, mostly African-Americans, and that, especially in the South, church structures have become a way of reinforcing the privilege and power of whites. It's no accident that when Brown v. Board was decided, a huge percentage of white people began sending their children to private "Christian" academies. Why would they be any more interested in ceding privilege or sharing it with others now than they have been in the past?
4
Wow...great analysis of "family values"...Barbara!
The thing that persuades people is the POWER OF YOUR IDEAS. If what you believe and practice is right it should be evident in YOUR life. The bible says at Mathew 7 that "by their fruits you will recognize them". If you are happier, more content, more successful, more productive: The world WILL take note. The reality among many professed “Social Conservatives” is much different, at least those involved in politics. To paraphrase Mario Cuomo, they try to legislate morality. They use hateful speech, support racist policies, and oppose others designed to help the most vulnerable. Many through the years have demonstrated, not the transformative power of their beliefs, but rank hypocrisy. This is a primary reason religion is waning. As for the cry coming from the right about “freedom of religion” it is almost laughable. Historically they gladly limited the freedom of others. It needs to be recognize that sin is a religious concept. Laws enacted based on the religious beliefs of one group to stop people from “sinning”, violates the religious freedom of others. Views on premarital sex, abortion, marriage, customs and practices, dress and grooming are often founded on religious tenants. WHEN THEY ARE CODIFIED IN LAW THEY RESTRICT THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS. It’s time for “Social Conservatives” to get out of politics, live their values, produce good fruit, build happy communities, and let others see THE POWER OF THEIR IDEAS.
3
Speaking as an atheist raised in a VERY Christian household: It's not their beliefs per se which are the problem. As a concept, the separation of church and state was more than just an excuse to avoid taxes. Non-political institutions can claim to be above the fray; beyond the disingenuous rhetoric of politicians desperate to secure their next term. That's why whatever any individual may think of an individual Supreme Court decision, they enjoy the highest approval rating of the three branches. With no prospect of re-election, consider how much more forceful President Obama has become. Likewise, when Church sermons were more than disguised political talking points, they enjoyed a certain dignified standing in their communities. There are no examples in the Bible of a Christian becoming as politically active as many congregations have become. The Bible itself says that God sets up rulers and tears them down for his own reasons (on a separate note, Jesus himself explicitly said everyone should pay their taxes). In any case, the point of the Gospel is to save souls. It is quite clear that unless someone is WILLINGLY adhering to Christian values, that mission is not accomplished. Thus, trying to dominate others by codifying the Bible into law and punishing non-believers is a waste of time and effort. Even if the government gave them everything they wanted, not a single soul will have been saved. They should return to leading by example.
The behavior Mr. Brooks suggests cultivating has always supposed to have been the Christian way of life. Reference Christ's life, not hierarchical social and religious institutions designed to keep "the poor" in line. Be kind, caring, generous, and nonjudgemental. I remember when one could get a priest to call on someone who is ill or to preside over a funeral or to meet for counseling regardless of whether the individual in need was a tithing member of a parish. Not so common anymore.
We thank the supreme court law for disallowing homosexual conversion therapy, for allowing homosexual pedophiles to walk the streets, and also for giving little 12 yr old girls the "morning after pill", and free abortions....no questions asked, and for legalizing recreational marijuana, and soon to follow.....legalizing recreational heroin and recreational cocaine. Question: Instead of regular brand cigarettes, will prison inmates in Colorado prisons be able to purchase and smoke recreational marijuana in their jail cells? After all, it is no longer a crime, right?
1
It is organized religion of all stripes that is losing ground, but belief in God, a Creator, Spirit of the Universe or a higher power has not diminished since the 1940s when Gallup first started taking that survey. Today, 94% of Americans believe in "something" outside themselves, and that's encouraging. I think perhaps most believers also possess a moral compass that guides them to help others and live decent lives. All is not lost in the culture war, but religion may be.
Mr. Brooks gets it wrong again.
Christianity is not in decline in the United States.
Attributing the collateral damage of the Obama Era to a subjective and tortured statistic driven claim that Christians are dwindling around the world is amateur hour intellectualism at its most obvious.
The Obama Doctrine is quite simple. Ignore the rules, do not respect personal boundaries or individual thought and do whatever you want regardless of consequence.
America isn't just witnessing an assault on the bright line rules of Faith, but also of law. Look at Mr. Obama's immigration policy, which is de-facto amnesty, open borders and anything goes. Enter the US on a rail car or through a fence, the government will come up with an excuse to let you stay regardless of rule of law.
We are seeing a societal revulsion to rules. Why Mr. Brooks wants to scapegoat my faith to explain away poor leadership from the White House is beyond the realm of the sane to understand.
A nation always reflects its leaders. Obama has no regard for the Christian faith or rule of law, other than when he pays lip service to both for the sake of his image, so it should surprise no one that many Americans are doing the same.
Christianity is not in decline in the United States.
Attributing the collateral damage of the Obama Era to a subjective and tortured statistic driven claim that Christians are dwindling around the world is amateur hour intellectualism at its most obvious.
The Obama Doctrine is quite simple. Ignore the rules, do not respect personal boundaries or individual thought and do whatever you want regardless of consequence.
America isn't just witnessing an assault on the bright line rules of Faith, but also of law. Look at Mr. Obama's immigration policy, which is de-facto amnesty, open borders and anything goes. Enter the US on a rail car or through a fence, the government will come up with an excuse to let you stay regardless of rule of law.
We are seeing a societal revulsion to rules. Why Mr. Brooks wants to scapegoat my faith to explain away poor leadership from the White House is beyond the realm of the sane to understand.
A nation always reflects its leaders. Obama has no regard for the Christian faith or rule of law, other than when he pays lip service to both for the sake of his image, so it should surprise no one that many Americans are doing the same.
1
If a nation reflects its leaders, why didn't McCain win in 2008?
This man, Obama must be all-powerful to have changed a country so much by being elected - twice.
This man, Obama must be all-powerful to have changed a country so much by being elected - twice.
McCain didn't win in 2008 because the entire news media became infatuated with its creation, Barack Obama.
Yes, Obama wields considerable power. At every turn he has overstepped Constitutional boundaries to expand and abuse power both dejure and defacto, to create a narrative in this country that if you do not like a law, simply ignore it and do whatever you want.
Winning presidential elections isn't a panacea--Nixon won twice, but we had a news media that believed in truth back then that held him accountable.
Nixon was forced to resign and the House voted to impeach Nixon for ONE of the seven wrongs Barack Obama has gotten away with entirely.
Yes, Obama wields considerable power. At every turn he has overstepped Constitutional boundaries to expand and abuse power both dejure and defacto, to create a narrative in this country that if you do not like a law, simply ignore it and do whatever you want.
Winning presidential elections isn't a panacea--Nixon won twice, but we had a news media that believed in truth back then that held him accountable.
Nixon was forced to resign and the House voted to impeach Nixon for ONE of the seven wrongs Barack Obama has gotten away with entirely.
Your faith is the problem...it is full of hate and exclusion...worry about yourself "barrister"...whatever that is supposed to imply...big deal, so you went to law school...so did I but I am not a right wing, religious hater...
I relish the demise of your type...
I relish the demise of your type...
Much of this conservative backlash is little more than the outcome of their unholy alliance with a political party--the Republican Party. If a religion lays down with politicians, it's going to get up with fleas. Bad mix!
2
It seems to me that the term "social conservative" was coined in the Reagan years to describe people whose biggest policy concerns are about social issues, and their policy preferences generally revolve around preventing what they believe are bad acts (e.g. children out of wedlock, abortion) rather than treating the results of them (e.g. broken families, fatherless communities.) It is rather naive to think that these folks are suddenly going to change their approach or actions because of one 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
Mr. Brooks is asking social conservatives to become...community organizers? Say it ain't so.
Not all Christians are intolerant bigots. It is those narrow conservative congregations who condemn homosexuals to hell and inveigh against women who want to control their own bodies and their own lives who are suffering from declines. And no wonder. Who wants to be part of a religious congregation that has hate, intolerance and exclusion as its principal doctrine. In such congregations one is only a slip away from condemnation. God forbid that a congregant in such churches express support for an LGBTQ relative or friend.
Both Catholic and Protestant denominations, and individual churches, "welcoming congregations" who preach tolerance, love and inclusion are doing quite well.
It is a singular feature of our social landscape that the churches of exclusion are trying to protect their intolerance by hiding behind the 1st Amendment. We should recognize this movement for what it is: Freedom to Hate and Discriminate.
Both Catholic and Protestant denominations, and individual churches, "welcoming congregations" who preach tolerance, love and inclusion are doing quite well.
It is a singular feature of our social landscape that the churches of exclusion are trying to protect their intolerance by hiding behind the 1st Amendment. We should recognize this movement for what it is: Freedom to Hate and Discriminate.
4
go solar and think for yourself. you cannot deny another's search for theother/teotl(N), or deride the impossibilty, by definition, of that quest/ion,
for the answer has to be heard by the individual him/herself. as Carl Franz
said,"wherever you go, there you are"(Gringo's Guide to MX).
for the answer has to be heard by the individual him/herself. as Carl Franz
said,"wherever you go, there you are"(Gringo's Guide to MX).
What would Charles Darwin do? He might measure the reproductive success of various groups in society, and figure that groups with low reproductive success are irrelevant. The sexual revolution at it's core is about sex without children, hence low reproductive success, hence sexual revolution "players" are mostly irrelevant. The Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) at their core are about sex (and constraints on sex), family, and children. Lots of stable three and four child families there. As such they will be around in the next generation, and can figure out how to better deal with the sexual revolution between now and then.
1
Social conservative can indeed to all the things you say, Mr Brooks, so long as they resist the urge they so often succumb to, that is, the urge to judge themselves as better people than those whose values or circumstances do not align with theirs. You cannot be an ambassador of love and grace when you deny both to those whom you purport to serve. Mercy is not the traditional hallmark of these social conservatives of whom you speak. But it can become so!
1
The problem I see is the Christian community seems to want Christian views to be turned into a state religion. I am a Christian who attends church regular however I do not expect my values to be turned into the law of the land. I think a religion is weak when they must have their beliefs turned into law to make their followers follow them.
12
This is precisely correct. Religious involvement in the secular controversy of same-sex marriage is very puzzling since the teachings of many faiths on this point are very well known. That Texas allows another non-sacramental variant of marriage should be of little concern to confident religious leaders.
This is sound advice for a group that is increasingly viewed as shrill, intolerant and out of step with contemporary society. Rather than moving further to the margins of today's American culture, you offer Christian conservatives a path to influence that culture in a truly relevant way, consistent with their fundamental ethics. I don't expect the majority of Christian social conservatives to avail themselves of this path, but I applaud your warmth and compassion in illuminating it.
2
To claim there is a war on Christianity in this country is to live with your head in the sand. There isn't a war on Christianity, it's the church who failed the public and itself.
The Church had an opportunity to grow with society during Vatican II, where the council of Bishops advised the soften of the church's position on birth control, and amongst other things like marriage of priests. But, instead the Pope chose to bury the church's head in the sand for another century.
If you look at the statistics in the US, the public are searching more than ever for sources of spiritual and moral foundation, and they're finding it regions that don't encroach on areas outside of their domain (like science and biology). The Catholic church is like a business that has expanded outside their expertise. Basic objections over condoms proved dangerous especially in areas like Africa and South America where sex education and condoms helped stem the spread of HIV. The Church helped fill the gaps in knowledge during the middle ages, but today the church's role in science and medicine is an ever dwindling need. Combine that with the shear obscene hypocrisy of the mega church's accumulation of wealth and involvement in politics, Christianity in America is less Christian.
We live in a world of greater transparency, If the Catholic church wants to remain relevant they need clean their own house, get out of areas they have no business in, and focus on the teachings of Christ.
The Church had an opportunity to grow with society during Vatican II, where the council of Bishops advised the soften of the church's position on birth control, and amongst other things like marriage of priests. But, instead the Pope chose to bury the church's head in the sand for another century.
If you look at the statistics in the US, the public are searching more than ever for sources of spiritual and moral foundation, and they're finding it regions that don't encroach on areas outside of their domain (like science and biology). The Catholic church is like a business that has expanded outside their expertise. Basic objections over condoms proved dangerous especially in areas like Africa and South America where sex education and condoms helped stem the spread of HIV. The Church helped fill the gaps in knowledge during the middle ages, but today the church's role in science and medicine is an ever dwindling need. Combine that with the shear obscene hypocrisy of the mega church's accumulation of wealth and involvement in politics, Christianity in America is less Christian.
We live in a world of greater transparency, If the Catholic church wants to remain relevant they need clean their own house, get out of areas they have no business in, and focus on the teachings of Christ.
5
It's hard to believe that someone as smart as David Brooks is peddling this notion that what's happened to Christianity in the USA has happened to it from the outside. The evangelicals have spent the last forty years taking a universal faith that dealt with universal things and turning it into a right-wing political party. Anything, and anyone, that does not comport with right-wing politics has been erased. This was a choice; nobody forced them to do it. And now they find their religion diminished in numbers and influence? To find the cause, look in the mirror.
19
This is not a war. The framing of values as a war is a major concern. The framing of deep values as part of politics is a major concern. Values are a good to be shared in any religion or faith. When we remove values from their proper arena and into government we all lose.
4
it's not anyone's liberty to impose their religious beliefs onto anyone else. we live in a civil society. but conservatives don't realize this for some reason, as they have somehow enjoyed a level cultural dominance for a few decades. they have lost this dominance, and it pokes a hole into their belief that their point is view is "right" and others are "wrong," and, on some level, even makes it quite clear the tenuousness and even ridiculousness of their entire belief in a "god" that for whatever reason resembles an angry father figure and we are all supposed to fear. down with the mean daddy-god.
3
Brooks connects disrupted, strained living conditions to a social change that had benefits (no-fault divorce, for example) with social consequences that relate to cultural context, particularly our inability to provide the services needed as wives became single mothers who find the cost of child care crushing. Private benevolence, homilies from a podium, do not oblige non-residential parents to make support payments. I say that social, religious conservatives who look to assist the working poor will find allies they weren't expecting. Think how gay families could relieve the burden of foster children while living out the message of 'love, dignity, commitment, communion, grace.' We Unitarian Universalists are offering support and the gift of voice to gay families, right now, today, this Sunday.
There's a huge difference between an experience of God that naturally evokes compassionate action, and putting on the mantle of institutionalized religion that browbeats others into "right behavior."
It only takes about 50 years for a spiritual truth to be corrupted into an institutionalized form due to the creation of human hierarchies and bureaucracies. It may be why Jesus said, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there will I be also," and not, "Where two or more..." Because "more" inevitably assumes that "if it looks good, it is good." Image management becomes the be-all and end-all. If you behave the way we want you to, then you're a good person and our culture will be saved.
This is precisely the model of Christianity I grew up in, and then grew past.
I'm not a Christian, but I see where the words and behavior of Christ inform my personal spiritual journey. His parables point beyond the surface story to a felt and experiential truth: God is here and now; we are not separate from God; our "purpose," if we have one, is to love and serve others as an outflowing expression of God's love.
If I add anything whatsoever to that mandate, then I'm adding rules that reflect my own fear, ego, and expectations. And out of that comes separation, judgment, and intolerance.
By all means, go out into the world to serve! But remember that judging others -- even their behaviors -- is to fail to see the person within whom God dwells.
It only takes about 50 years for a spiritual truth to be corrupted into an institutionalized form due to the creation of human hierarchies and bureaucracies. It may be why Jesus said, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there will I be also," and not, "Where two or more..." Because "more" inevitably assumes that "if it looks good, it is good." Image management becomes the be-all and end-all. If you behave the way we want you to, then you're a good person and our culture will be saved.
This is precisely the model of Christianity I grew up in, and then grew past.
I'm not a Christian, but I see where the words and behavior of Christ inform my personal spiritual journey. His parables point beyond the surface story to a felt and experiential truth: God is here and now; we are not separate from God; our "purpose," if we have one, is to love and serve others as an outflowing expression of God's love.
If I add anything whatsoever to that mandate, then I'm adding rules that reflect my own fear, ego, and expectations. And out of that comes separation, judgment, and intolerance.
By all means, go out into the world to serve! But remember that judging others -- even their behaviors -- is to fail to see the person within whom God dwells.
6
Very well said!
Of course, the way to proceed when suffering from a bunker mentality is to stealthily retreat deeper into the bunker and quietly prepare for the ultimate battle against the foe.
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
5
Let me correct Mr. Brooks--American culture is shifting away from the hate thrown, by the orthodox christian community, at various groups, including the LGBT community, women, various minorities, and people of other faiths.
This is a great thing!
This is a great thing!
9
so let me get this straight. the sexual revolution was a major cause of all the problems (part of your point) you want social/religious people/organizations to address, without addressing the more direct fallout from the sexual revolution, ie, no-fault divorce, homosexual ascendancy, fatherless children, et al. Basically you want social/religious people/organizations to mitigate the problems of others without addressing its cause. Kind of like Boxer in animal farm? I choose to fight, not mop up your messes. Besides you Liberals won't stop until you're taking our kids from us. Brooks is right about one thing, we are better equipped to deal with these things, it's why we don't have these same problems to the scale that the wider culture does. We're also better armed.
1
As long as its called war its a divisive problem. Our forefathers separated church and state and any effort to combine the two should be resisted. That doesn't mean that each of us has to give up our religious beliefs, our parish or our community. The Amish appear to live a very restricted religious life without making others outside it do the same. Why can't the religious right use the Amish as an apolitical example of devotion and adherence to what they believe?
9
Nietzsche was right that in its eagerness to judge and condemn others, religion is profoundly anti-life. We see the same phenomenon in the disdain of the neo-Christians for environmental concerns--after all why take care of the planet in this life if we are just waiting for some history-ending salvational drama?
2
David, folks of all ages are ignoring religion for many reasons, but mostly because you have to be pretty dumb to accept the hocus pocus and magic invisible friends Christianity is based on. The culture is maturing and no longer resembles a bible school class of 7 year olds.
4
That those of us who call ourselves Christians in the US, in all of our diversity, have allowed the label "Christian" to become identified with only the most conservative (even sometimes hateful and exclusionary) beliefs and positions is very, very sad. Many Christians are not social conservatives; many Christians have been leaders in the battles for human rights in all their dimensions. Yet we have allowed the voices of judgment and condemnation to stand unchallenged to define what a Christian is in the public eye. Shame on us that this is the Christianity Mr. Brooks sees.
4
My family goes to church once a year, but we are very much social conservatives. It is becoming increasingly difficult to raise children who are firmly rooted in our social belief system but we know how important it is to raise them our way, and try our best everyday.
We intend to raise our children to be well-mannered, well-spoken, honest, kind, conscientious, hard working, value learning, law-abiding, responsible and above all SELF RELIANT adults, who practice responsible, safe sex, do not subscribe to the crass, narcissistic, blame everybody but yourself hook-up culture that is so prevalent among their generation. We expect them to get married before having children, and be responsible, good parents who value education and learning and instill in their children the good, traditional middle class values we instilled in them.
That to us, is what being a social conservative is all about. The war for us, is with the liberal left who want to tear all that down through our schools and our media.
We intend to raise our children to be well-mannered, well-spoken, honest, kind, conscientious, hard working, value learning, law-abiding, responsible and above all SELF RELIANT adults, who practice responsible, safe sex, do not subscribe to the crass, narcissistic, blame everybody but yourself hook-up culture that is so prevalent among their generation. We expect them to get married before having children, and be responsible, good parents who value education and learning and instill in their children the good, traditional middle class values we instilled in them.
That to us, is what being a social conservative is all about. The war for us, is with the liberal left who want to tear all that down through our schools and our media.
1
The values you claim for social conservatives are pretty much the same for the liberal left (although 'traditional middle class values' is meaningless without specific elaboration). Your 'war' should be focused instead on the free-market,
corporate immorality of our health care system, agribusiness, energy sector etc.
that has increasingly gripped our culture in the last 30 yrs.
corporate immorality of our health care system, agribusiness, energy sector etc.
that has increasingly gripped our culture in the last 30 yrs.
to: "Listen of WA," liberals have the same goals as you do with respect to their children. They also want their children to learn to think critically, to be objective about the beliefs that are taught them when they are children, and to courageously live according to their conclusions about those beliefs. Demonizing liberals is not honest nor kind, and hurts you. Please, for your own sake, stop.
All admirable goals. Not one of them was ever mentioned by Jesus - whom I suspect was not particularly concerned with "traditional middle class values".
Perhaps that's why you only attend church "once a year"? The message you'd hear the other 51 Sundays might not entirely jibe with your "social conservative" beliefs.
Perhaps that's why you only attend church "once a year"? The message you'd hear the other 51 Sundays might not entirely jibe with your "social conservative" beliefs.
One begins to wonder about you leftists and your fixation on christianity. Islam is far more homphobic, and far more out step with american values. Not one muslim bakery will bake a cake for a gay wedding, and not one mosque will conduct a gay wedding. Yet, notice in this entire "gay marriage conversation", you guys NEVER mention the muslims. It's always about the christians, isn't it? Methinks you guys have a problem.
1
Non Christian 5.9% of Americans. Includes Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and other faiths. PewResearch.com
Don't flatter yourself. It's about Equal Protection in the public sector, nothing more. There is no US Christian church - nor will there ever be - being forced to perform nuptials for gay couples any more than there are Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or Hindu institutions under similar duress.
Maybe if you kept your noses out of other folks' business, they'd stay out of yours. It's a time honored American value.
Maybe if you kept your noses out of other folks' business, they'd stay out of yours. It's a time honored American value.
Don't you find it strange that conservative christians agree with radical islamists on the issue of gay marriage.
People are free to worship as they please as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on others. The fact that society doesn't fall in line with their doctrines is not persecution. The problem with too many fundamentalist Christians is that they focus too much on the vengeful God of the Old Testament and not on Christ's message of love and forgiveness.
5
The Jew-Christian-Muslim has a problem (I clump together because all share the same core belief system):
To be a Jew-Christian-Muslim one must believe:
1) In original sin,
2) Satan is in control of this earthly world, and
3) Some day the world must be destroyed to make room for a new world.
Since these are the foundational beliefs of all Judeo-Christian-Muslims, they cannot be altered. Of course, some Muslims (e.g., Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and ISIS) have already decided that the only option is to fight, to the death if necessary, to defend these Judeo-Christian-Muslim values.
Now if we can just get more Christians to do the same, the world will be a better place.
Right, Mr. Brooks?
To be a Jew-Christian-Muslim one must believe:
1) In original sin,
2) Satan is in control of this earthly world, and
3) Some day the world must be destroyed to make room for a new world.
Since these are the foundational beliefs of all Judeo-Christian-Muslims, they cannot be altered. Of course, some Muslims (e.g., Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and ISIS) have already decided that the only option is to fight, to the death if necessary, to defend these Judeo-Christian-Muslim values.
Now if we can just get more Christians to do the same, the world will be a better place.
Right, Mr. Brooks?
1
1) Original sin is a Roman Catholic concept. It does not exist in Judaism.
2) Satan being in control of the earthly world is not part of Judaism.
3) Jews are not apocalyptic.
Please don't speak about religions about which you know nothing.
2) Satan being in control of the earthly world is not part of Judaism.
3) Jews are not apocalyptic.
Please don't speak about religions about which you know nothing.
There r already christian groups with the kind of emphasis David is describing. But they're about compassion and helping, not judgment and punishment. The "conservative" Christians' raisen d'être is antithetical to the core message of Jesus' example and teachings.
2
Mr. Brooks writes as if a "society rendered atomized" can be rewoven by religious values, but our current culture and, more importantly, political economy of atomistic individualism is simply the latest, most recent historical stage that began with Kant's "asocial social" individual and the various 18th century "Robinsonades" (as Marx acerbically called them) from Rousseau's contrat social to Adam Smith's individual who "trucks and barters," and so forth. One is tempted to say, "It's the economy, stupid!" We live in a society where the individual appears to be held back and fettered by the very social relations that make individuality possible to begin with. The atomistic individual is both the triumph of capitalist society, and it's absolute limit. A withdrawn and preserved religion may or may not have a future role to play in restoring edifying social relations, but it probably won't be the avant-garde for such a project.
1
Three points, Mr. Brooks.
1) This is not written for conservatives. Conservatives do not read you. You are the liberal's safe conservative. Obama's pant crease.
2) Christians are already, and have always been, trying to repair the fabric of broken communities. There are innumerable Christian organizations helping heal people, families, and communities here in New Orleans. In fact, my church talks more of this than gay marriage or abortion.
3) I think most churches HAVE been doing number 2, and while we have focused on all of this for the past two decades, the William Safires were replaced by the David Brooks and the true conservative voice became ignored as the ravings of some madman. Does the national media focus on the churches doing the social work? No. They focus on Westboro, painting the world as a choice between ignorant hicksvilles and vibrant gay pride parades.
Think that you might be wrong.
1) This is not written for conservatives. Conservatives do not read you. You are the liberal's safe conservative. Obama's pant crease.
2) Christians are already, and have always been, trying to repair the fabric of broken communities. There are innumerable Christian organizations helping heal people, families, and communities here in New Orleans. In fact, my church talks more of this than gay marriage or abortion.
3) I think most churches HAVE been doing number 2, and while we have focused on all of this for the past two decades, the William Safires were replaced by the David Brooks and the true conservative voice became ignored as the ravings of some madman. Does the national media focus on the churches doing the social work? No. They focus on Westboro, painting the world as a choice between ignorant hicksvilles and vibrant gay pride parades.
Think that you might be wrong.
3
To state the obvious, David Brooks has conflated "social conservatism" and "Christianity." I am no longer religious, in the traditional way, but I grew up in the Christian-tradition and I know Christians today and many are social progressives and even radicals. As was Christ I might argue. These issues are already fraught and confusing enough. Why further muddy the waters with such an obvious blunder?
2
Sexual mores being at the heart of the push back against Christianity? Ask the victims of pedophilia at the hands of trusted Christians about the sexual mores of the Catholic Church. Or do those outstanding Christians get a "buy" from you Mr. Brooks, for somehow being persecuted? The revelations still forthcoming about the sexual abuse that was allowed to be perpetrated on innocent victims by Priests has led some to at least question their Catholic faith. Further how many sex scandals about public figures who head Christian organizations have there been over the past 10 years? So look to the Christian institutions themselves for why people are turning away from them, not at the people who do not want to participate in institutions that are no longer trustworthy.
1
In other words, you're asking them to be Christians.
In spite of what some commenters here have written, what I've heard and read from Christians over the past 30+ years is nothing but hate, fear-mongering, intolerance, obstructionism, divisive rhetoric.
Christ would be appalled at their lack of compassion and forgiveness and love of others.
It's one of the reasons I love this new Pope. He is calling on each of us to be true to the real values set forth by Christ. Love one another. Be kind to one another. Value one another.
Until the conservative "Christian" can do that, I will not listen to them.
In spite of what some commenters here have written, what I've heard and read from Christians over the past 30+ years is nothing but hate, fear-mongering, intolerance, obstructionism, divisive rhetoric.
Christ would be appalled at their lack of compassion and forgiveness and love of others.
It's one of the reasons I love this new Pope. He is calling on each of us to be true to the real values set forth by Christ. Love one another. Be kind to one another. Value one another.
Until the conservative "Christian" can do that, I will not listen to them.
5
"Those are the people [social conservatives] who go into underprivileed areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families."
Mr. Brooks is correct. Boy, do we need a lot more of those people. People, in fact, like the young Barack Obama and the community organizing and selfless commitment that formed the basis of his politics.
Mr. Brooks is correct. Boy, do we need a lot more of those people. People, in fact, like the young Barack Obama and the community organizing and selfless commitment that formed the basis of his politics.
10
The social conservatives are far from the essence of what real religious commitment is about. If anything, they are more like the Muslims who try to impose their view of Sharia on the rest of the world. Although there are many people of good faith who devote their lives to helping others, I doubt that it is the social conservatives who populate their ranks. They will not change the future. This group is largely responsible for driving people away from the church. It should also be noted that the church has completely facilitated this. On top of that, the moral turpitude that the church has tolerated has also driven away many others. All of this is pre Pope Francis. His path is the only path that will once again provide the basis for religion to come back into the lives of so many. Take care of the Earth given to us by God. Take care of the poor. Treat others as you would wish to be treated. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. One only need to pay the most minimal attention to our political life to understand who is against these principles.
6
David, I think you are on track, but let me reframe it slightly.
Albert Schweitzer and Dorothy Day would be fine models, but how about Jesus--the one who simply said love your neighbor as yourself. The second commandment is a fine north star. Let go of the harsh interpretations and agenda's of small minded and fearful followers. Love God. Love your neighbor. While not a Christian, I would be quite thrilled to practice those commandments with my Christian brothers and sisters.
Albert Schweitzer and Dorothy Day would be fine models, but how about Jesus--the one who simply said love your neighbor as yourself. The second commandment is a fine north star. Let go of the harsh interpretations and agenda's of small minded and fearful followers. Love God. Love your neighbor. While not a Christian, I would be quite thrilled to practice those commandments with my Christian brothers and sisters.
4
Christians and social conservatives are not the same thing. It is entirely reasonable to expect Christians, at least those of the kind that attend my church, to "serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace" through acts of charity and service. "Social conservatives," on the other hand, seek to have their particular, and quite limited, understanding of biblical morality enshrined in law. If the Christian church seeks a revival in America, it would do well to distance itself from these self-proclaimed defenders of the faith.
4
Beginning in the late 1970's, the "religious right" decided the best way to pursue its agenda was via coercive legislation. In essense, these so-called "Christians" decided to abdicate their role to government.
Where are we today, 35 years later? Has the religious right succeeded in any way? No. It is an abject failure.
Jesus never encouraged his supporters to run for office and change the laws. Jesus never blamed Rome for the world's social problems. Jesus expected his followers to lovingly serve others, just as Mssr. Brooks suggests in this wonderful op/ed.
"Christians" have failed to coerce non-believers. Hearts and minds have not been "christianized" since the religious right rose to prominence 35 years ago.
It is indeed time to set aside the coercion and return to Jesus's fundamental teaching: Love your neighbor as yourself.
Where are we today, 35 years later? Has the religious right succeeded in any way? No. It is an abject failure.
Jesus never encouraged his supporters to run for office and change the laws. Jesus never blamed Rome for the world's social problems. Jesus expected his followers to lovingly serve others, just as Mssr. Brooks suggests in this wonderful op/ed.
"Christians" have failed to coerce non-believers. Hearts and minds have not been "christianized" since the religious right rose to prominence 35 years ago.
It is indeed time to set aside the coercion and return to Jesus's fundamental teaching: Love your neighbor as yourself.
2
Any witness to the largely ignored Gay Pride parade that took place Sunday here in New York could not help but be impressed, even moved almost regardless of one's real feeling about the wisdom or rationality of a society going on the record to allow marriage between any two consenting adults regardless of their sex. The roars of approval as one group after another took a turn into a new stretch of Fifth Avenue made the very ground shake beneath one's feet and stirred emotions. Was this the Fall of Rome or yet another step on America's journey toward maximum individual freedom?
Regardless of where one stands on this, one thing is clear. This is what more and more Americans think is important. I don't know where Mr. Brooks got his statistics on the decline of Christianity in the U.S., but even if this is a numerical fact, gay marriage and taking down the symbols of Dixie can only serve to embolden and solidify the right wing "base." What we have here is a huge weapon of mass distraction. With the passage of time, fewer and fewer younger Americans will even understand what is at stake.
Regardless of where one stands on this, one thing is clear. This is what more and more Americans think is important. I don't know where Mr. Brooks got his statistics on the decline of Christianity in the U.S., but even if this is a numerical fact, gay marriage and taking down the symbols of Dixie can only serve to embolden and solidify the right wing "base." What we have here is a huge weapon of mass distraction. With the passage of time, fewer and fewer younger Americans will even understand what is at stake.
2
400 years ago, The Catholic Church took a position on the debate, heliocentrism or geocentrism; the Church, in its wisdom, decided that the sun goes around the earth.
And Catholic Theologians are still apologizing for what they did to Galileo
The Christian stands on birth control , premarital sex and gays are no less stupid; 400 years from now, Christian theologians will still be apologizing for these stands.
And Catholic Theologians are still apologizing for what they did to Galileo
The Christian stands on birth control , premarital sex and gays are no less stupid; 400 years from now, Christian theologians will still be apologizing for these stands.
3
The conservative Christians you talk about do not cover all of Christianity. I am an active liberal Christian. I support gay rights, and celebrated when the Supreme Court recognized the rights of gay marriage. My church and I believe in "Love your neighbor."
Conservative Christians get a lot of press, but they are not all of us.
Conservative Christians get a lot of press, but they are not all of us.
4
Ha ha. Good one, David.
As if social conservatives care about that stuff.
As if social conservatives care about that stuff.
6
Decrying out-of-wedlock births while supporting an organization that actively tries to prevent access to birth control and abortions. The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.
4
I am a little bit baffled by the suggestion, toward the end of the piece, of what "social conservatives" can become. I didn't think that being religious was part of the definition of "social conservative." (It may be that most social conservatives are religious, but I didn't think that was part of the definition or meaning of the term.) It sounds to me like Brooks is saying that social conservatives ought to become religious liberals.
3
Christianity may be in decline but humanity is on the rise. I'd rather have a richer humanity than a Christianity proselytized by characters like Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, Huckabee, Bush who are now rejecting then pope's messages on humanity.
4
I think you are confusing people who use Christianity as a tool for their hate and Christians. When you come right down to it Islam is enduring exactly the same fate. With modern science making it quite obvious God isn't necessary, all faith organizations are going to contract and when that happens the radicals rise to the top.
4
I love this. Demonstrate your beliefs and stop yammering at others about them. Your example is a lot more likely to move me and gain followers. And bring us back together as a society.
2
I appreciate David's attempt to bridge the gap, but resent the implication that it's Christian conservatives who 'do good.' I defy him to show evidence that those of us who believe in freedom from religion; support marriage equality and don't equate living together without marriage with immorality are less 'good' than the so-called Christians. While I am sure that many Christians do good works, I don't believe that the rest of society 'lacks values' and needs to be shown the way. But I certainly support his premise that all Christians should give up imposing their religion-based values on the rest of us and get out in their communities and do something constructive!
10
Three prominent Evangelicals have called for inclusion of gay married people into their congregations: Tony Campolo, Jennifer Knapp, and Mark Woods (Christianity Today). Years ago the pundit Cal Thomas echoed David Brooks theme: give up the fights over sex.
1
Brooks writes: "More and more Christians feel estranged from mainstream culture."
What about all of us Christians who feel estranged - and betrayed - by institutional religion? I am a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic Christian who feels disgust for the institutional Catholic church for its immoral behavior on such issues as child abuse, homophobia and its anti-gay crusade, and its continued patriarchal misogyny toward women.
If THAT is the Christianity people are walking away from, then I would characterize them as quite faithful indeed.
What about all of us Christians who feel estranged - and betrayed - by institutional religion? I am a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic Christian who feels disgust for the institutional Catholic church for its immoral behavior on such issues as child abuse, homophobia and its anti-gay crusade, and its continued patriarchal misogyny toward women.
If THAT is the Christianity people are walking away from, then I would characterize them as quite faithful indeed.
6
The sad thing is Mr. Brooks is that I don't believe the people you describe in your well-written essay exist. The reason many of us have lost faith in faith communities is because of their seemingly endless and boundless hate for anyone who doesn't subscribe to their particular system of values. Why must my values be their values? Who or what has given them the right to foist their values on me? Quite frankly, I have had my fill of all their handing wringing and pearl clutching. While I cling to the hope that, as a society, we can move on and focus the issues you highlight, I'll believe it when I see it.
5
If Christianity is on the decline, it is no one's fault except the Christians themselves. They, or at least the spokespersons they have accepted, have reduced Christianity to its present state with blatant reversals of Christ's words and teachings. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" has become "Do unto others, but do it first". "Sell all you have and give it to the poor" has been interpreted as "God wants you to be rich," and "Let them eat cake." This so-called "war on Christianity" of the likes of Mike Huckabee, who sold his soul to the devil years ago, is a myth perpetrated as a political ploy to gain power and money. If there is a "culture war", it's against the poor, the indigent, the unemployed; however, Christian pride and their lack of humility have blocked the Christians' eyes from seeing this "decline" as an admonition from God to change their ways back to the real teachings of Christ.
8
As a Christian, my charitable giving and volunteerism is first and foremost an act of love for my savior Jesus. This relationship is the fountainhead of my love of humanity. But Christ taught Truth AND Love, not either or. I can and do love all of you who write hateful messages about Christ's church, but I cannot pretend that up is down for you. If you cannot see that same-sex relationships are disordered, then you have probably been given over to your wickedness. You know not what you do.
No one is writing hateful messages about Christ or about churches. What people hate is hypocrisy and bigotry.
If Christians were really the last bastions of moral values (as Brooks implies) then statistics on morality (divorce, adultery, out-of-wedlock births, etc.) from red-state areas claiming superior religiosity would be superior to those same statistics from more secular areas. They don't. Brooks, again, refuses to acknowledge statistics and reality when it best suits his glib argument. He does this often, especially in his books.
1
That Christianity is in decline in the U.S. is, of course, a complex sociological phenomenon. Perhaps the rank, strident hypocracy of the "Religious Right" and the Evangelicals in particular has made more than a little contribution to that decline. Ethically questionable actions leading to tearful apologies with a horrified spouse standing by looking like a deer caught in the headlights seems to lead to re-election. Yet, moral recrimination is reserved for everyone else who doesn't profess the same beliefs.
When anyone begins a statement with, "As a Christian," or "As a person of faith," I treat that as a warning disclaimer.
When anyone begins a statement with, "As a Christian," or "As a person of faith," I treat that as a warning disclaimer.
3
If you are trying to follow the example and teachings of Jesus Christ, you probably lack the time or motivation to loudly and frequently proclaim that you are a "Christian!" Faith and works are a lifetime journey, not a destination. I am a devout Episcopalian. Church is important to me. Worship with a faith community is important, as a place to recharge for the work of following the teachings of Jesus. Those teachings show up in many religious and non-religious guises, but share in common improving the world for the "least of these". Do that, and why should anyone care what label you attach to it. This is life, not branding.
1
In the name of religion it seems there will always be some group that is not worthy: singled out and excluded because they are dangerous, evil, immoral...pick your adjective. This seems to be the one constant over thousands of years of religious history. If nothing else, it helps me understand why so many today abandon religion and want nothing to do with it. On the other hand, there is an alternative. David Brooks...please follow up with an article about Progressive Christianity, to give credit to all who proudly call themselves Christian, but worship a God that loves and accepts and celebrates ALL people.
3
I contrast this piece and many of the comments here to the Facebook posts of several of my fundamentalist friends since the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision. These posts feature none other than the eminent, evangelically pedigreed Rev. Franklin Graham citing the true origin of the rainbow which, he purports, has now been perverted (sorry...) from its true origin as a sign from God of new hope after His great flood cleansed a filthy word. While pointedly suggesting that another cataclysmic example of his God’s judgement has just been brought nearer, I saw no mention of “love, dignity, commitment communion and grace.” Good luck, Mr. Brooks -
1
The main benefit of being a Christian has nothing to do with our culture or current politics or what values and morality issues are being debated. A true believer in Jesus Christ has the promise and certainty of eternal existence with God. This is the true essence of Christianity.
Christianity is a difficult thing to define. The many hundreds of ideas , the many interpretations, the many practices are so different and most so removed from the "love thy brother: and "do unto others "that was the orginal plan that it is now another multi cult chaotic process. The Muslims have the same problem, a polygot of ideas and practices all claiming to be the true one. Religions are man made organizations,and are imperfect and usually corrupt. They have been used for centuries to promote the organizations and politicians recognize the power to cloak oneself with Gods identity.
Thank you for the condescending pep talk, David. Christians escaped from political persecution in England to these shores and formed a nation based on the principles of John Locke. The consent of the governed.
It appears that the majority of Americans favor gay marriage, nationalized healthcare, and persecution in the form of political correctness. You have been part of the problem.
The Left views America as a racist, imperialist warmonger. The right used to defend America from slanders, but now I wonder who will be left to speak up for a country that has gone so wrong so quickly? Wal-Mart? Wall street?
It all seems so empty now.
It appears that the majority of Americans favor gay marriage, nationalized healthcare, and persecution in the form of political correctness. You have been part of the problem.
The Left views America as a racist, imperialist warmonger. The right used to defend America from slanders, but now I wonder who will be left to speak up for a country that has gone so wrong so quickly? Wal-Mart? Wall street?
It all seems so empty now.
3
The culturally shocked, conservative, aging, Chicken Little sorts look around today and see a world collapsing, while the rest of us breath a sigh of relief that we can finally get back to being the country our founding fathers envisioned where everyone enjoys the same liberties and there is an unambiguous separation of Church and State. Sadly the harbingers of a culture war today are sociopaths more interested in spreading violence than a message of love.
4
You sound sensible, unfortunately the religious right are not sensible. They really need to read about Christ's life and teachings. The current group of religious radicals are hateful, unbending and really living in the 16th century. They need to grow up, they need to keep their noses out of everybody else's lives and they need to be more accepting of people that are not like them. Until that happens they will never be happy. But the democrat in me wants them to keep fighting these losing battles because the electorate might actually pay attention to them.
5
We have an obligation in clinical psychology to always strive for the LEAST restrictive and LEAST intrusive form of treatment for any condition. Organized religion should have the same goal. This would mean de-institutionalizing spiritual development, relying not on brick-and-mortar churches and temples but on one's own communal bonds with others in the LEAST intrusive manner. Why might this be threatening to Christian churches? Because most of them now exist not for spiritual communion but for their own wealth accumulation and the egos of their pastors. This are institutions rife with conflict and in-fighting among their own sects (see Presbyterians) due to divisive beliefs that are imposed on others' lives: Intrusive and restrictive institutionalized religion at work. Therefore, I bid good riddance to outdated and constraining institutions that have often sought to intrude upon, judge, and demean how others live, all the while working hard to shore up their own wealth and power under the phony guise, most often, of "Jesus". Good riddance indeed.
4
Mr Brooks is asking socially conservative, fundamentalist Christians to become politically liberal Christians. It's not going to happen.
4
Brooks often brings clarity to muddy waters, but in this case he does the opposite. The "social conservatives" he describes are not people defined by a "faith based on selfless love" who are somehow clumsily allowing themselves to be characterized by a public obsession with sex. They are defined by what they do, and not surprisingly that is frequently a good guide to what their true beliefs are. A real commitment to selfless love would surely prevent people from "obsessing" about anything so much that they are blinded to the human impact of their relentless focus on the specks of "sinfulness" in others' lives while ignoring the planks in the way of life of their own tribe. Instead, what we see is people acting out prejudice and bigotry packaged as religious virtue. The religion is a convenient vehicle for their true beliefs, not the source of them.
388
To: Carlson
Your opinion is just so much blind hatred & propaganda against Christianity. If you had any courage you would label yourself the bigot that you are.
A Christian's true commitment to selfless love does not ignore what the Bible instructs in order to fit in with the current social fashion of the day.
Every mention of homosexuality in the Bible is condemnatory. There is no good thing that is said of this practice.
If the society wants to go its own way and ignore what God has said then "okay". Sometimes God permits humankind to have its own way ... and then they'll be sorry.
Your opinion is just so much blind hatred & propaganda against Christianity. If you had any courage you would label yourself the bigot that you are.
A Christian's true commitment to selfless love does not ignore what the Bible instructs in order to fit in with the current social fashion of the day.
Every mention of homosexuality in the Bible is condemnatory. There is no good thing that is said of this practice.
If the society wants to go its own way and ignore what God has said then "okay". Sometimes God permits humankind to have its own way ... and then they'll be sorry.
The greatest error in this so-called Christian Fundamentalism is the assumption that everything written in the Bible is written by God and it seems that the political right has taken this same principle and applied it to the US Constitution. Jesus had a lot of negative things to say about lawyers for good reason, by picking and parsing at the text they could make any argument valid even if it ignored the very spirit of the document. Hence, this obsession with homosexuality based on a few scriptures written for God knows what reason....yet the spirit of Christianity is about loving one another. One of the core teachings of Christ is anti-materialism, anti-greed and anti-wealth which stands directly in conflict with the economic system that conservatives love. To me, this should be the primary message of the church today and thankfully there's now a Pope who embraces this teaching.
4
What bothers me, and I suspect many others, is the selective outrage and hypocrisy of fundamentalist Christians. They single out homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage and fight against it with all their strength, but they mostly ignore issues, also condemned in the Bible, like adultery and divorce and many actively support the death penalty and American wars of choice. Where is the condemnation of the adultery and multiple divorces of Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh? Five of the six Catholic Supreme Court justices support the death penalty, contrary to the church's teaching. Agree with the Catholic Church or not, but at least it is consistent in its pro-life stance - no abortion, no death penalty, no war, no euthanasia.
Many people, especially young people, see the selective focus on homosexuality and reject the entire religion. It's easy to pick on a minority, and Americans don't like seeing minorities persecuted. If you want your religion to be respected and maybe even revered, be consistent.
Many people, especially young people, see the selective focus on homosexuality and reject the entire religion. It's easy to pick on a minority, and Americans don't like seeing minorities persecuted. If you want your religion to be respected and maybe even revered, be consistent.
1
This is the thought provoking column of the day. I think now might be a good time for good Christians to mull over a moral/existential issue that I hear almost nothing written about.
As an outsider looking in, it is my observation that Christians (and most other people of religious faith) regard life on earth, here and now, as nothing more than a way station on the way to the next existence. What happens here on earth is less important than what happens later. That is why we talk about the "unborn," morality (because of consequences in the next life), and praying.
Herein lies the disconnect. I regard life here and now on earth to be pretty important because I'm not expecting anything later. I can't help but feel that Christians just wait for life on earth to be over so they can migrate to the next existence. Consequently, life on earth is less real.
I'll end with an illustration. Consider that two of our famously Catholic supreme court justices opine that it is OK to use an execution drug to effect an end that two other supreme court justices say is cruel and unusual. I don't question that Alito and Scalia are Catholically moral people. I do have to question their moral priorities. I can't help but think that our Catholic jurists don't really think they are doing any harm because the executed will eventually end up in the other existence - ie, no harm done.
As an outsider looking in, it is my observation that Christians (and most other people of religious faith) regard life on earth, here and now, as nothing more than a way station on the way to the next existence. What happens here on earth is less important than what happens later. That is why we talk about the "unborn," morality (because of consequences in the next life), and praying.
Herein lies the disconnect. I regard life here and now on earth to be pretty important because I'm not expecting anything later. I can't help but feel that Christians just wait for life on earth to be over so they can migrate to the next existence. Consequently, life on earth is less real.
I'll end with an illustration. Consider that two of our famously Catholic supreme court justices opine that it is OK to use an execution drug to effect an end that two other supreme court justices say is cruel and unusual. I don't question that Alito and Scalia are Catholically moral people. I do have to question their moral priorities. I can't help but think that our Catholic jurists don't really think they are doing any harm because the executed will eventually end up in the other existence - ie, no harm done.
1
In my experience with evangelicals, and all religious fundamentalism in general, is that they operate from fear all the time, no matter the occasion, no matter the issue. Life outside their limited religious-view frightens them because it constantly conflicts with who they see themselves as. They are always at war, fighting the "enemy," preserving God's will. They'd rather kill than liberate themselves of their fears.
3
"They fear their colleges will be decertified, their religious institutions will lose their tax-exempt status, their religious liberty will come under greater assault."
__
Jesus will not come under attack - it's the RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS that twist, wrongly interpret & abuse the scriptures for their own purposes.
GOD gave all humanity FREE WILL.
SCOTUS just put that concept in human law.
Lets all hope the Republican party can save it's self from the Christian's that have filled the Republican party with hate & INTOLERANCE before the next election or I will have to abstain from voting or find a new political party!!
__
Jesus will not come under attack - it's the RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS that twist, wrongly interpret & abuse the scriptures for their own purposes.
GOD gave all humanity FREE WILL.
SCOTUS just put that concept in human law.
Lets all hope the Republican party can save it's self from the Christian's that have filled the Republican party with hate & INTOLERANCE before the next election or I will have to abstain from voting or find a new political party!!
1
I have always found it offensive when the US is called a Christian country. Are those who believe in another religions or not at all without a proper place in the US? Christians of whatever denomination are entitled to their beliefs, just as everyone else is. What they have to understand is that they cannot impose their beliefs on everyone else. The US is a country that is more and more diverse, and mutual tolerance is necessary for a civil society. No one will force any priest, minister or rabbi to marry gay couples. No one will force a woman to have an abortion. However, believers do not have the right to take away those possibilities from the rest of the population. They have to stop fighting and start accepting the world in the 21st century.
4
Christian churches have, in the past, undertaken outreach to spread their doctrines and dogmas to people in need. That activity has often ended badly because at the core of the outreach was the goal of proselytizing.
Many First Nations communities in Canada were decimated by the residential school system that was imposed upon them. The "saintly" Mother Teresa imposed restrictive Catholic doctrine on her charitable acts.
This is a culture war that Christianity might win, but at great cost to those who are the nominal targets of the charity.
Many First Nations communities in Canada were decimated by the residential school system that was imposed upon them. The "saintly" Mother Teresa imposed restrictive Catholic doctrine on her charitable acts.
This is a culture war that Christianity might win, but at great cost to those who are the nominal targets of the charity.
1
I am hearing a lot of Christian-bashing in these comments and in Mr. Brooks' article. I think Christians should speak out more for what they represent. While Christians have made their share of mistakes (and keep in mind Christ's parable of the adulteress), they have also contributed much to society, including the American one. By making sweeping generalizations about Christianity and ignoring its complexities and variations, Brooks does not do justice to followers of Jesus. To make one simple point, Christian social conservatives do not represent all of Christianity, and nor can they find grounds for many of their views in Scripture. If we could all hold the need to love one another in our hearts, much of these divisions would melt away.
2
No one is bashing Christians, plenty of people are speaking out against hypocrites who claim to be Christians.
When an atheist can successfully run for national office, then I will believe we are living in a post Christian nation. Brooks' seems to ignore that in the US, Christian "social" conservatism is linked arm in arm with political conservatism, which seeks to destroy policies (health care, safety nets, livable wages) that serve the welfare of those very people that Christ tells us to look after. There is a tremendous gap in the professed values of the Christian right and the public policies they support. The "war" is among themselves.
4
it would help if more Christians would recognize how they have been marketed to, and played by, the republican party.
4
Mr. Brooks article is the perfect example of textbook liberal hypocrisy.
I quote: "Put aside a culture war that, at least over the near term, you are destined to lose." He says that Christians wage this culture war based upon sex, and this is true. Then he goes on to call for a new culture war saying: "Many communities have suffered a loss of social capital. ... Many adults hunger for meaning and goodness, but lack a spiritual vocabulary to think things through."
If there is a party that should surrender their efforts in the culture war, it is liberals like Mr. Brooks. He identifies correctly social capital loss and the break down of values and "common norms" as a serious problem in society but fails to admit that liberal values, strategy in the culture war, and the sexual revolution itself is fundamentally responsible for these issues.
All of the issues coming out of the sexual revolution have redefined marriage, not based upon children and the raising of a family, but are now rooted in individuals and their now transient relationships with each other. People no longer treat relationships seriously, sex is no longer a valuable commodity to be held sacred within the bonds of marriage. If sex no longer has value and marriage no longer has value, now marriage is virtually meaningless with so called gay marriage. Without marriage, we get a 50% divorce rate and broken families. This is the suicidal trajectory of liberal policy.
I quote: "Put aside a culture war that, at least over the near term, you are destined to lose." He says that Christians wage this culture war based upon sex, and this is true. Then he goes on to call for a new culture war saying: "Many communities have suffered a loss of social capital. ... Many adults hunger for meaning and goodness, but lack a spiritual vocabulary to think things through."
If there is a party that should surrender their efforts in the culture war, it is liberals like Mr. Brooks. He identifies correctly social capital loss and the break down of values and "common norms" as a serious problem in society but fails to admit that liberal values, strategy in the culture war, and the sexual revolution itself is fundamentally responsible for these issues.
All of the issues coming out of the sexual revolution have redefined marriage, not based upon children and the raising of a family, but are now rooted in individuals and their now transient relationships with each other. People no longer treat relationships seriously, sex is no longer a valuable commodity to be held sacred within the bonds of marriage. If sex no longer has value and marriage no longer has value, now marriage is virtually meaningless with so called gay marriage. Without marriage, we get a 50% divorce rate and broken families. This is the suicidal trajectory of liberal policy.
1
"liberals like Mr. Brooks"?? He's the NYT house conservative.
Not to mention the broken logic of "without marriage we get a 50% divorce rate". Without marriage we have a 0% divorce rate.
Not to mention the broken logic of "without marriage we get a 50% divorce rate". Without marriage we have a 0% divorce rate.
Christianity is on the decline in the Unuted Stares because the enemy has successfully infiltrated our culture. "For our enemy is not flesh and blood, but the principalities svd rulers of the dark". We are seeing the fall out of a spiritual battle betwen good and evil and we shouldn't attack each other. As a recovering secular humanist I can tell you that I was wrong and I'm grateful that God took pity on me in my arrogance and pride and lifted me out of my self inducted suffering! I hope you hear my word of caution, as I was exactly the same way. If you are upset over the mustaches of organized religion then just pick up the bible and learn the Truth first hand. I personally have a Ph.D, and absolutely get where you're coming from but I was wrong snd grateful that God rescued me!
May you be acutely aware of Gods love for you today
May you be acutely aware of Gods love for you today
2
It's far from a given that acceptance of gay marriage is evidence of a decline in morality. After all, lack of tolerance for people with different cultures or racial backgrounds has caused many of the worst human behaviors in history. Steps towards greater tolerance are viewed as improved morality by many of us.
Another point: perhaps one reason people are leaving organized religion is the dismaying difference between what's in scripture and the direction from religious leaders. The four gospels are the very essence of Christian teaching, and Jesus never once mentions homosexuality and has very little to say about sex in general. And it's not like there was no homosexual behavior to discuss in those days; it was very common in Roman society. On the other hand, Christ preached repeatedly about taking care of the poor, the needy and the sick, and the concern expressed for these unfortunates is almost indiscernible in church pronouncements.
Homophobic religionists have to go to Leviticus to support their position. This is fine, but if Leviticus is to be your guide, consistency suggests that you should follow ALL of Leviticus and not cherry pick. This means following rules for food preparation, the sacrifice of goats, the designs of places of worship, and a host of requirements that no Christian tradition takes seriously. In fact, Christ himself chastised the Hebrew scholars of his day for their hypocritical interpretations of these rules. What would he say today?
Another point: perhaps one reason people are leaving organized religion is the dismaying difference between what's in scripture and the direction from religious leaders. The four gospels are the very essence of Christian teaching, and Jesus never once mentions homosexuality and has very little to say about sex in general. And it's not like there was no homosexual behavior to discuss in those days; it was very common in Roman society. On the other hand, Christ preached repeatedly about taking care of the poor, the needy and the sick, and the concern expressed for these unfortunates is almost indiscernible in church pronouncements.
Homophobic religionists have to go to Leviticus to support their position. This is fine, but if Leviticus is to be your guide, consistency suggests that you should follow ALL of Leviticus and not cherry pick. This means following rules for food preparation, the sacrifice of goats, the designs of places of worship, and a host of requirements that no Christian tradition takes seriously. In fact, Christ himself chastised the Hebrew scholars of his day for their hypocritical interpretations of these rules. What would he say today?
6
This issue could be firmly put to rest if States would declare marriage a religious designation in which they have no business and which has no legal status. Then comply with the supreme court and allow legal unions for gay and straight couples. The "marriage license" becomes a civil union license. Churches are then free (or not) to offer their "marriage ceremony" based on their beliefs. Freedom wins all around, and we can move on.
1
Jesus was a radical, not a conservative. Just as he ate with tax collectors and talked with strange, unconventional women, defending their rights to life and -freedom in 1st century Palestine, he would celebrate same-sex unions and demand that we continue to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the planet in 21st Century America. Just as he said that 'the laborer is worthy of HIS wage' back then, he would say that so is SHE today. His life and teachings were all about compassion (which, literally, means shared suffering), love, helping those who are in any kind of need, upholding the basic dignity of every individual - no matter how lowly or depraved they may have become - and looking to working out one's OWN salvation while sharing the good news with others. He never said to beat anyone over the head with the Bible, or shame them into silence, he said to set an example and invite (not force) others to follow.
When the mainline churches get around to implementing this, then they will prosper again.
When the mainline churches get around to implementing this, then they will prosper again.
9
"...orthodox Christian positions on homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce and a range of other social issues..."
Funny thing about premarital sex and out-of-wedlock childbearing. The vast majority of children born in the world, including in the Christian-dominated world, were and have been born out-of-wedlock and were and have not brought up by a male-female, two-parent family. A belief that such a system has ever existed is a myth.
Funny thing about premarital sex and out-of-wedlock childbearing. The vast majority of children born in the world, including in the Christian-dominated world, were and have been born out-of-wedlock and were and have not brought up by a male-female, two-parent family. A belief that such a system has ever existed is a myth.
1
I became a born-again Christian in 1977 and had never heard of the Moral Majority. As the election of 1980 drew near I couldn't believe the overwhelming "turning against" Jimmy Carter I was seeing, obviously a sincere believer in my eyes, in favor of the divorced, crassly commercial, B-grade movie star Ronald Reagan.
If Christ had desired "Christian nations", and if he was who Christians think he was, he'd have created them without breaking a sweat. The fact is, he spoke of God and Caesar as different entities-- one to which you owed taxes without question, the other to whom you owed obedience without question.
One thing I could never get over. I was raised as a farm boy and did quite a bit of hoeing of weeds through the years. So when I read in the purported word of God that the love of money was the root of all evil, I listened. How wonderful it would have been if all weeds had been fed by one root I thought. My back would not be ruined today, and my hands would not ache as much. Yet not only do MANY Christians worship money and wealth, they pretend as if abortion, homosexuality, and taxes are what the Bible calls the roots of all evil.
I wonder how many Christians ever stop to think what the Romans were doing with those coins with the image of Caesar on them that Jesus used to expose the religious hypocrisy of the Pharisees by ordering them to pay taxes with them? Gladiatorial "games", imperial conquest, rape, murder, pillage.
Christianity's problem is Christians.
If Christ had desired "Christian nations", and if he was who Christians think he was, he'd have created them without breaking a sweat. The fact is, he spoke of God and Caesar as different entities-- one to which you owed taxes without question, the other to whom you owed obedience without question.
One thing I could never get over. I was raised as a farm boy and did quite a bit of hoeing of weeds through the years. So when I read in the purported word of God that the love of money was the root of all evil, I listened. How wonderful it would have been if all weeds had been fed by one root I thought. My back would not be ruined today, and my hands would not ache as much. Yet not only do MANY Christians worship money and wealth, they pretend as if abortion, homosexuality, and taxes are what the Bible calls the roots of all evil.
I wonder how many Christians ever stop to think what the Romans were doing with those coins with the image of Caesar on them that Jesus used to expose the religious hypocrisy of the Pharisees by ordering them to pay taxes with them? Gladiatorial "games", imperial conquest, rape, murder, pillage.
Christianity's problem is Christians.
12
Wrong. brooks only has one definition of Christianity, the ironically titled "fundamentalist" hating unforgiving type. There is another kind of Christianity in the USA which is practicing the love and forgiveness that Jesus, the Western Buddha, taught. Thank God that the anti-Christian pro-war, anti-woman, pro-guns, racist, imperialist, greedy hypocritical so- called Christianity, self titled "moral majority" is not dragging us into a dark and ignorant age. The Uncorrupted Love of Christ's Christianity is not diminishing but rising.
5
Amen! Brooks and others conflate "Christian" with Protestant, evangelical, and fundamentalist.
Many Christians are not Protestants. In the greater world a large majority are not Protestant, belonging instead to RC, Orthodox, or those Anglican other denominations that eschew the name Protestant.
Many denominations do not describe themselves as evangelical, although evangelism (sharing the "Good News") is a part of all Christianity.
Many evangelical denominations are not fundamentalist or literalistic.
And, finally, a great many Christians of all stripes are not politically conservative nor deceived by the foolish idea that someone else's marriage will some how weaken their own.
Many Christians are not Protestants. In the greater world a large majority are not Protestant, belonging instead to RC, Orthodox, or those Anglican other denominations that eschew the name Protestant.
Many denominations do not describe themselves as evangelical, although evangelism (sharing the "Good News") is a part of all Christianity.
Many evangelical denominations are not fundamentalist or literalistic.
And, finally, a great many Christians of all stripes are not politically conservative nor deceived by the foolish idea that someone else's marriage will some how weaken their own.
Religion is too often used as a control mechanism, "we control access to heaven, so you'd better do our bidding."
Further, religious conservatives have fallen prey to the "resentment" hot button used by Republicans to stir the base. You say religious factors minister to the poor, but many loudly complain that they don't want to support deadbeats, as Republican operatives insist they do.
Good luck with your effort, however.
Further, religious conservatives have fallen prey to the "resentment" hot button used by Republicans to stir the base. You say religious factors minister to the poor, but many loudly complain that they don't want to support deadbeats, as Republican operatives insist they do.
Good luck with your effort, however.
3
I think Davie is hitting the bong. He says not to fight for your values but then goes on to list all the ills in the country and says to fight for them. All those ills can be linked right back to the things these people want to fight to hold onto. How do you surrender your views while trying to instill those views into people who need them? The exact ills of this country are being built on out of wedlock births, premarital sex, divorce and the exact social ills the church teaches to avoid.
2
The common denominator for the things you mentioned is the economy. Take a look at out of wedlock births etc. in red states.
Christianity lost the culture war in the 16-17th centuries. We are simply seeing the playing out of the defeat, for, having lost the culture, it is losing political and social power. The masses began leaving in Europe first, and now in America, North and South. Can anything stop this? Of course -- Thomas Aquinas did it in the 12th century. It takes a broad engagement and openness with the culture, not pouting like Deher, or reduction to personal virtue as Mr. Brooks opines. Technology and the web are on the cusp of transforming our culture in ways we cannot imagine. A new Thomas may be picking up a keyboard at this very moment….
1
The Collapse of American Culture:
In the Bible when Abraham was forced to go to Egypt and Philistia because of a famine in the land he told his wife Sarah (who was also his relative) to say that she was his sister.
These countries were monarchies with law and order. All he had to do was to register as manned wife at the proper government offices and he would be protected by the local adultery laws.
But Abraham said, “There is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me on account of my wife.” To the strict letter of their law if someone murdered him his wife would would be permitted to anyone else.
What about the laws of the land and the judicial system?
Abraham understood that when these are not based on the fear of God the laws will neither hold up nor protect individuals.
Prior to the Great Depression, Germany had opera, art, literature, science, industry, law and order, etc.
How did they become the phenomenon of the ages developing into a nation that ended with the death camps? Were there not time-honored laws in German judicial law books against murder?
But the fear Abraham had was based on the fact that all the governmental laws in the world were worthless if there is no fear of God.
When people believe the Bible is “fairy tales” and refuse to learn the lessons of improving their moral character and becoming someone who recognizes a greater power than themselves they will revert to all the forms of idolatry that the Bible warns them about.
Says the guy who votes for people who target the poor, the elderly and children and leave them without proper nutrition or medical care.
1
No one has had more to do with rendering our society "atomized, unforgiving and inhospitable," than the members of the bipartisan elite who Mr. Brooks shills for on a regular basis.
I read a book before I retired called "Vandals Banquet." It celebrated the pillage of Europe by those barbarians who do well in up and down markets (bond traders in the eighties) by making the rules, so that they never have to break the rules, in order to always come out on top in the never ending game of chance, which represents life for most of us.
Politics determines who shall have, and who shall have not, and as we can see the modern Vandal Bankers have no use for politics because no matter who wins or loses, they always win, because they transcend the system. Even if there were a modern Aetius in a business suit, abetted by a roughneck Theodoric, the battle for civilization would still be lost because the principles which have buttressed Western Civilization have been abandoned in the name of Market Forces. Greece is misunderstood to be a victim in isolation, but the Huns know better. Mr. Brooks sides with the Barbarians even as he mourns the loss of civic virtue. What a fraud!
I read a book before I retired called "Vandals Banquet." It celebrated the pillage of Europe by those barbarians who do well in up and down markets (bond traders in the eighties) by making the rules, so that they never have to break the rules, in order to always come out on top in the never ending game of chance, which represents life for most of us.
Politics determines who shall have, and who shall have not, and as we can see the modern Vandal Bankers have no use for politics because no matter who wins or loses, they always win, because they transcend the system. Even if there were a modern Aetius in a business suit, abetted by a roughneck Theodoric, the battle for civilization would still be lost because the principles which have buttressed Western Civilization have been abandoned in the name of Market Forces. Greece is misunderstood to be a victim in isolation, but the Huns know better. Mr. Brooks sides with the Barbarians even as he mourns the loss of civic virtue. What a fraud!
5
I guess it's out of the question to suggest that religions should turn their attention away from public policy and back to spirituality. Once upon a time there were people like Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Merton and, you know, St. Augustine and lots of others who spent their lives penetrating the spiritual mysteries of Christianity. They were onto the real thing. Now it's all public policy. But who in the modern world thinks that religious groups are in the best position to formulate public policy? Policy making is part and parcel of politics, its a messy affair that involves every manner of tradeoff and staked interest and compromise and practical consideration. What does that have to do with religion? Why have religions decided that this rather than spiritual pursuit is their reason for being?
4
"Social conservatives could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love."
They may subscribe to it, but a whole lot of them don't seem to *believe* in it.
They may subscribe to it, but a whole lot of them don't seem to *believe* in it.
9
If the "cultural conservatives" were true Christians in the way of their icon, Jesus Christ, they would show more concern for the hungry, the homeless, the uninsured, the environment, etc rather than other peoples personal lives. Look at the states governed by these conservatives --cutting unemployment benefits, not adopting medicaid, stigmatizing food stamps and taking money from public education to benefit religious schools.
12
There is little about the American evangelical/conservative Christian opposition to gender and marriage equality that I think reasonably attributable to a "a faith built on selfless love".
9
conservative christians already have what david describes. it is called an american catholic nun
11
I wholeheartedly believed in Santa Claus until I was about six. He was a cheerful old white-bearded man who loved kids and brought gifts every Christmas Eve, I was really bummed when I figured out he didn't exist.
I was a Christian until about eighteen. Jesus was a kind, cheerful bearded young man who loved all people and offered eternal life. I was really bummed when I figured out he didn't exist.
The meanest people you will ever met are on a golf course or in church.
I was a Christian until about eighteen. Jesus was a kind, cheerful bearded young man who loved all people and offered eternal life. I was really bummed when I figured out he didn't exist.
The meanest people you will ever met are on a golf course or in church.
7
He is asking Christians to do what Jesus asked them to do -- stop putting stumbling blocks in the path of children and the blind. Get off their high horses and stop praying for people but doing for people. Provide food for the hungry without prostituting them by demanding prayer in exchange. Provide housing for the homeless. Be witnesses for love and not disdain. I'm not sure the social conservatives even can do that.
5
The only thing more amazing about the enormous social changes taking place in this country is the mind-numbingly stubborn nature of all Conservatives (Christian or not) in regards to race, sexuality, religion, climate change and worst of all, firearms. For too long, Christian Conservatives have used their beliefs as a crutch on these issues thus avoiding the inevitable evolution of our culture. Enough already, get into a productive dialogue or return to the caves!
2
Any religion that tries to force others to follow its dictates is going to have problems. Christianity had the upper hand in Europe for centuries, using torture and repression, burning at the stake, etc., to maintain control. Muslims have also have (and some are) used the path of forcible conversion. If Christians "already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love," they could have a lot more impact on society by living their faith through good works rather than arrogantly haranguing others who have different beliefs. But the militant solider of Christ attitude is still prevalent.
4
So, Brooks describes christian conservatives thus: "Social conservatives already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love. They can serve as examples of commitment. They are equipped with a vocabulary to distinguish right from wrong, what dignifies and what demeans. They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely." This delusional interpretation may explain why conservatives look upon themselves with such indignant righteousness. How does this description square with consistent denial of a life sustaining minimum wage and affordable health care for the weakest among us? Why are our for-profit jails filled to capacity with minorities convicted of minor offenses? Why the continuing job and housing discrimination among these same minorities? The list goes on and on. Selfless love, really? Rather than claiming that social conservatives possess the above admirable qualities Brooks should try to come up with the answer to why they don't.
9
Let's face it: since the GOP fosters a special appeal for evangelicals, it's safe to say Republicans, more than others, identify with Christian values. So where are the Republican plans to ease the burdens of the poor, to raise up minorities, to help people find homes and jobs, to end discrimination and violence and preserve the planet?
American Christians just don't always seem very Christ-like.
American Christians just don't always seem very Christ-like.
14
There are churches that serve poor communities all across America and have done so for centuries. The problem is partly that they have lost their foothold in urban communities, where they are most needed, and somewhat in middle class suburbs. Does secular antagonism to religious communities have anything to do with that?
I applaud Brooks' exhortation for evangelicals to get out of other people's bedrooms and practice what Christ lived and preached - to focus on the New Testament rather than cling to the Old. But first they must acknowledge that Christianity is not under attack. That premise plays well with thebTed Cruz camps, but nowehere else. What is being challenged and rejected is the hypocrisy of evangelicals constantly pointing out the mote in others' eyes while ignoring those in their own. Of spending obscene amounts of money on building mega cburches here and on mission efforts in far-off places rather than working to help their neighbors in distress at home. Of participating in political witch hunts that feed their us-vs-them paranoia. Until they get out of the political arena and work as Christ did to bring hope, comfort and help to those in need, their ranks will continue to shrink.
16
Keen Observer, very good points. Well stated.
What I dislike about the conservative Christian movement is that they wish impose their beliefs and values on society as a whole.
If a religious person says:
1> My god says I should BELIEVE this ... OK, go for it
2> My god says I should DO this ... Fine, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others
3> My god says YOU should DO this ... Now we have a problem
4> My god says I should MAKE you do this ... Those are fighting words
Another person's religious belief stops at my rights, at my door.
If a religious person says:
1> My god says I should BELIEVE this ... OK, go for it
2> My god says I should DO this ... Fine, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others
3> My god says YOU should DO this ... Now we have a problem
4> My god says I should MAKE you do this ... Those are fighting words
Another person's religious belief stops at my rights, at my door.
10
We have lived with Judeo-Christian ethics for 2,000 years. Look around. Its horrific and amazing where we are."
Norman Lead interview with NYT, June 28, 2015
Norman Lead interview with NYT, June 28, 2015
1
Mr. Brooks, this is an inspirational piece of writing. Please don't be discouraged. Most evangekucal Christians I personally know are deeply in prayer over our nation and everyone in it. As a recovering humanist who has suffered the error of my ways, I can say that I know with certainly that God loves each and every person commenting on this article and any venom or negativity that they may be writing is their attempt to work out their salvation through Jesus Christ. They just don't realize that the Holy Spirit is interceding for them. Be patient, as God took pity on me in my arrogance and pride and showed me His truth. I can relate to these people as I was just like them. So, stay strong and keep writing. We Christisns need a spokesperson like you with the guts to write articles submitted to the main steam power houses like the NYT. God sees you and your heroic efforts. I pray God's favor over you. Have a blessed day and fight the good fight. Remember God goes before you and will strengthen you.
Christianity will always be with us. Hopefully, it will evolve so that the cultural conservatives will realize that in a free society, others will make decisions they don't like. That is what living in a democracy is all about. Moral conservatives use the mantle of religion to tell others how to live but it is not working and often they do not follow their own advice. They are free to adopt their own lifestyle and communities just like everyone else. They can lead by example instead of demanding that others follow them.
5
Unfortunately the logical bankruptcy of most religious philosophy makes its adherents force non-believers to follow its idiotic dictates in order to calm the flock's own insecurity.
Mr. Brooks claims that "Christianity’s gravest setbacks are in the realm of values. American culture is shifting away from orthodox Christian positions on homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce and a range of other social issues." Yes, there is a shift away from from these divisive issues that you call "culture wars" and it is being led by none other than Pope Francis. These are not, as you later note, the real values of Christianity, but the small petty dogma of bigotry that pretends to be religious. The real Christianity so beautifully being articulated by the Pope (and I'm from a Jewish family) is one the focuses on the core vision of love for all, embracing the down-trodden, the social outcasts, and love of the world or "amor mundi." This is the essence of all religions and spirituality, which is on the rise, while the "old time religion" which seeks to divide, segregate, and punish is being pushed aside. Perhaps we are entering a new religious era as prophesied (in Corinthians 1:13) where it concludes: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
13
I am sorry, but are you claiming that the Pope is reversing Catholic dogma on the various sexual topics you listed? or are you simply buying into the media-driven spin that the Pope is the 'liberal Pope? Pope Francis is outspoken and has spoken about ensuring we as Catholics do not judge other people, and that all are welcome into the Church, but please do not interpret that as him now saying that out of wedlock sex is not a sin. He has said no such thing.
We should look at the data showing we are becoming less religious as a nation and think, "Thank God!"
7
Christians are not declining. That is a lie. Young people are not dropping out. Christian universities and colleges are growing very fast. America is in moral decline and that has nothing to do with God's people. The only hope America has is to turn to God. The only way you will hear the good news are by Christians.
2
You better read up on the recent Pew report. I would say even the Pew report understated Christianity's decline as it was phone based. Try a Snapchat based survey and see how that turns out.
You're making a point, but no the one you meant to. Why should anyone else care about your religion, or its definition of "moral decline"?
i am sorry..... as one of your heroes said "i didn't leave christianity, christianity left me". christians delved deeply into politics with positions of hate and discrimination and now they are paying the price. turns out people are actually much more like jesus than they had thought. love your enemy, turn the other cheek, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
when christians get back to that? they may find they are a positive influence on the world again.
when christians get back to that? they may find they are a positive influence on the world again.
6
American culture is shifting away from orthodox christian views of premarital sex, contraception, & out of wedlock childbirth?
Perhaps because the avowed christian former VP candidate has a daughter now on her second out of wedlock pregnancy, by a second different father, while being a paid spokesman for abstinence.
Somehow, the hypocrisy fails to resonate.
Perhaps because the avowed christian former VP candidate has a daughter now on her second out of wedlock pregnancy, by a second different father, while being a paid spokesman for abstinence.
Somehow, the hypocrisy fails to resonate.
13
Will you stop it already with the war rhetoric and the apocolyptic "Christianity is on the decline." It is such a transparent manipulation and all it does it make people wary of each other...unless that is what you want to keep on doing.
Why don't you actually just go out and live among real people for while? Instead of being in TV studios and lecture platforms, just go and be in the midst of people who don't recognize you from your picture. And stop trying to find some saintly archetype or someone with a magic message of wisdom. You will find people who give up their place in the grocery line, and those who help students who are too self absorbed to realize the gifts, and those who are friendly to their neighbors and just don't care about their religious heritage. Plenty of us in the regular United States get along real well, and have raised our kids to just be kind to classmates and neighbors. It's not perfect but it's not apocalyptic like you (and Pat Buchanan in 1991 ) proclaimed.
http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/buchanan-culture-war-speech-speech-text/
You can invoke Dorothy Day-- but why not try to live anonymously among the people Dorothy Day served for a month-- and then come back to tell us what you learned. I will know you really learned something when you write an essay which begins:"Now I realize I really had no idea about kindness, commitment, optimism, forgiveness, open-mindedness, endurance until ......."
You do have vacation time I expect....
Why don't you actually just go out and live among real people for while? Instead of being in TV studios and lecture platforms, just go and be in the midst of people who don't recognize you from your picture. And stop trying to find some saintly archetype or someone with a magic message of wisdom. You will find people who give up their place in the grocery line, and those who help students who are too self absorbed to realize the gifts, and those who are friendly to their neighbors and just don't care about their religious heritage. Plenty of us in the regular United States get along real well, and have raised our kids to just be kind to classmates and neighbors. It's not perfect but it's not apocalyptic like you (and Pat Buchanan in 1991 ) proclaimed.
http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/buchanan-culture-war-speech-speech-text/
You can invoke Dorothy Day-- but why not try to live anonymously among the people Dorothy Day served for a month-- and then come back to tell us what you learned. I will know you really learned something when you write an essay which begins:"Now I realize I really had no idea about kindness, commitment, optimism, forgiveness, open-mindedness, endurance until ......."
You do have vacation time I expect....
2
I agree with the author to some extent; addressing people's sexual mores and behavior is secondary. Over reacting to the sexual revolution could be a distraction to the Church's primary message; that God loves each of us, that each of us has incredible value, but that all of us need to seek and receive deliverance from the power of sin.
By the way, Jesus promised us that we would be "social pariahs", so that is nothing new.
By the way, Jesus promised us that we would be "social pariahs", so that is nothing new.
The "legalists" have always damaged the faith and destroyed people. I do not agree with Billy Graham on many things but have a deep respect for his position to not being in his ministry, "God's policeman". His son has departed from that path. Faith is about submission not winning. There is a grander being in control, and our ego's and selfishness blot out the light. Nasty humans love the LAW not it's gentle spirit of love.
1
It seems the biggest problem is that modern evangelism has abandoned the mission of serving the poor. In the era of mega churches, mega donors to political campaigns and the isolationism of an inward looking church culture has abandoned the work of Christ for a form of feel good religion of capitalism and possession obsessed works with grand churches, gyms, theater, and television drama to feed the money machine of more and bigger churches and television personalities. The message is "you are under attack and the world is coming to an end". Hunker down with those of your kind, isolate yourselves and your children through home schooling and anti science propaganda. Ignore the needs of the many and care only for your few. They can't repair a society they see as a lost cause and not worthy of their support or input. Save the few for the end is coming.
4
taking the name of God in vain is all there seems to be to American religion. No wonder it is turning people off in droves.
2
Mr. Brooks, a secular Jew might come to far different conclusions if he looked at secular vs.religous Jews here in New York.
The highest birth rates in the nation are amongst Chassific Jews. These people are not going anywhere and in America, they vote in large numbers. They disagree with Mr. Brooks and his secular counterparts on every social issue. They are opposed to gay marriage, birth control and abortion.
While secular Jews are at the forefront of these culture wars, they will simply be outvoted by their more religous cousins in a few short years.
The highest birth rates in the nation are amongst Chassific Jews. These people are not going anywhere and in America, they vote in large numbers. They disagree with Mr. Brooks and his secular counterparts on every social issue. They are opposed to gay marriage, birth control and abortion.
While secular Jews are at the forefront of these culture wars, they will simply be outvoted by their more religous cousins in a few short years.
1
Neither Christians (full disclosure - I am a practicing Catholic), nor conservative Christians, specifically, have a monopoly on morality or godly actions. Non-believers do the RIGHT THING every day without the slightest nod to a higher power.
I do not understand the Christian right's fear of losing a "culture war." This attitude is the modern-day equivalent of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, and we already know what the scriptures say about *them* in the Gospel of Matthew: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (NIV)
I'd pick a pagan over you people any day.
I do not understand the Christian right's fear of losing a "culture war." This attitude is the modern-day equivalent of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, and we already know what the scriptures say about *them* in the Gospel of Matthew: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (NIV)
I'd pick a pagan over you people any day.
11
Christian conservatives have spent the last 3 decades destroying the social fabric to the benefit of church leaders right wingpoliticians and corporations while doing everything possible to hurt the poor, the minorities and everyone who does not fit into their view of the world (single mothers, gays, etc). For them to to now try to reweave this social fabric would be hypocrisy of the highest order, not that they would not sink to those depths. We should just recognize their actions for what it is.
2
The root problem for fundamentalist Christians, who overlap to a large extent with social conservatives, is doctrinal. Fundamentalists have a deeply divided view of humanity, where a few are "saved" and most of humanity is deserving of eternal torture. Love and acceptance are conditioned on like-mindedness. No wonder that Christians feel estranged, and that millennials are fleeing in droves from these divisive teachings.
9
Until the fundamentalists Christians can honestly accept faiths and beliefs other than their own, people will continue to leave the church. The mantra that my way is the only way is hubris.
2
I don't know what Mr. Brooks's own spiritual identification is but it doesn't matter. As so many have all ready commented he gives too much deference to people who are totally un-Christian in their conduct. As Paul from Long Island ("and I'm from a Jewish family") so correctly notes it is Pope Francis who is leading the vanguard in Brooks's culture war and leading a return to a true Christianity, one that is inclusive, tolerant of others' faiths, and seeking ecumenical solutions to the problems that confront all mankind. Perhaps what Brooks calls Christianity is in decline, but the decline was brought on by its own actions, and we should welcome it. This is not a Christian nation but a democratic republic which according to its founding documents is dedicated to the principles of commonwealth. As I see it Brooks's Christianity is in decline, but the true Christians are on the rise. America is an idea not a dogma.
3
Take comfort, Mr. Brooks. Somewhere a ship is steaming out of port as an evangelist pauses in handing out tracts to drug stupefied transients to bless the cargo of cigarettes or hellfire missiles headed for distant lands & symbolizing American freedom & values. Thanks for doing your part!
2
I'm thinking the day will come when what was once unfathomable - real persecution of Christians in the US - will be actual, in fact it's already begun.
I'm torn, part of me is compelled to fight on, but part of me wants to stand back and pray for the inevitable fall of our country to come as soon as possible so we can pick up the pieces. It's heartbreaking to realize that our children and grandchildren will have to live through the wreckage that liberal policies are creating.
I'm torn, part of me is compelled to fight on, but part of me wants to stand back and pray for the inevitable fall of our country to come as soon as possible so we can pick up the pieces. It's heartbreaking to realize that our children and grandchildren will have to live through the wreckage that liberal policies are creating.
The idea that christians should isolate themselves further is certainly a loser but not for the reasons Brooks thinks. Faith never saves anyone. A person of faith will look at someone else at some point and say 'this person has less faith than me' which invariably leads to conflict. Faith makes it impossible to see only another human.
David- every time I start to admire your writing just a little bit, you throw out a bomb like this column. You say, "Put aside an effort that has been a communications disaster, reducing a rich, complex and beautiful faith into a public obsession with sex." A communications problem? No, the Evangelicals have communicated their belief in perfectly clear terms: they believe THE GAYS will burn in hell. Your advice is that they stop sharing their deeply held belief that homosexuality is a sin because it's not playing well with the American public. Great advice. It's ok to be a closet homophobe as it will help to advance our cause. That's disgusting.
2
Part of the issue to this approach will be the attacks we will see on charitable religious organizations who are morally obligated to not comply with observing homosexual unions among its employees. The NY Times already had its piece wanting to take away tax exemptions from these groups. Religious schools, hospitals, adoption services, etc. will continue to face attempts at being shut down. We have already seen it with the Little Sisters of the Poor, and their refusal to provide contraceptives, which amazingly the courts decided to defend.
But that won't last for long. We are one more liberal Supreme Court justice away from the leftist dream coming true via legislation from the bench.
But that won't last for long. We are one more liberal Supreme Court justice away from the leftist dream coming true via legislation from the bench.
4